Sitting of 23 January 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Occupational Pension Funds
    Mr. Redmond: TO ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total value of occupational pension funds in the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): In 1992, the estimated total value of occupational pension funds in the United Kingdom was well in excess of £400,000 million.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the Minister confirm that the occupational pension scheme is the key pillar of pension schemes in Britain today? Is he aware, however, that half a million people will lose a total of £1 million as a direct result of Government advice to invest in the private sector? Will he give a guarantee that those who are affected will be notified so that they can claim the money due to them?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from. I had hoped that he would welcome my answer, which shows that the UK's funded personal pension provision is better than that of any other country in the European Union, but as he did
    2
    not do so I shall say only that the basic pillar of our pension provision is the state retirement pension, which we shall continue to uprate in line with prices. This country's occupational pension provision is very good indeed.
    Sir Donald Thompson: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's first answer, but I remind him that occupational and private pensions have a sting in their tail. Often, having paid in for a generation, people have found that those pensions do not come up to expectations. Will he, therefore, regularly and rigorously review occupational and private pension schemes?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Pensions Bill, the Second Reading of which the House of Lords will debate tomorrow and which will make pension provision more secure and more flexible. It offers more choice and greater opportunity to provide for equality in pensions. All that will be good news for pension provision in this country.
    Mr. Ingram: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), does the Minister share the views expressed by the Independent Financial Advisers Association, as set out in today's edition of The Independent, which has taken court action to seek to avoid its duties and responsibilities to the 500,000 people who purchased personal pensions? Will the Minister give a guarantee, for which my hon. Friend asked, that all persons who have lost out due to the mis-selling of private pension schemes will be contacted and their schemes protected?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: This is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board. The Government have made it plain throughout that their view is that those who have suffered loss through the mis-selling of personal pensions should have redress, and that remains our position.

    Child Support
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the Social Security Select Committee's fifth report of Session 1993–94 on the operation of the Child Support Act 1991.
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for further reform of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): The Government have kept the operation of the Child Support Act 1991 under review for some considerable time. We have considered very carefully the recent report of the Social Security Select Committee and representations from many sources. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that the Government have now decided what changes are necessary, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make a statement to the House within the hour.
    Mr. Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I appreciate his difficulties in providing me with the information that I should like before our right hon. Friend's statement at 3.30 pm, but will he assure me that the Government have taken due notice of the fact that, too often under the present system, neither the parent with care nor the absent parent is satisfied? In particular, will he reassure me that the Government have carefully considered the need to reflect the importance of clean-break settlements and travel-to-work costs in any decision that the House may take?
    Mr. Burt: It is not possible, for reasons that, I suspect, my hon. Friend knows well, to go as far as he would like. I imagine, however, that quite a lot of my right hon. Friend's statement will meet his concerns.
    The House should be under no illusion: the Child Support Act 1991 and the agency operate in a very difficult area between former partners and their children. It was never possible for the courts to satisfy all parties. We must all doubt whether it would be possible for any legislation to do that because of the circumstances involved. The Government and the House should seek to achieve a fair and balanced settlement of maintenance between the parties and a fair settlement for the taxpayer. I sincerely believe that my right hon. Friend's statement will reassure the House on those matters.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in instituting medical tests for incapacity benefit.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): The detailed provisions of the new tests of incapacity for work are set out in the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 24 November. The regulations are subject to affirmative resolution, and will be debated by both Houses of Parliament.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he confirm that the medical test for incapacity is the most sophisticated of its type in the world and that it is designed to identify reduced ability to
    4
    perform activities and most certainly not reduced likelihood to obtain a job? Does he agree that that offers great reassurance to general practitioners, carers and, above all, disabled people themselves?
    Mr. Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one who is genuinely sick or disabled has anything to fear from the new test. Extensive development work and evaluations have shown that the test works as intended. Full preparations are now under way for its introduction later this year.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that a number of people have already been refused invalidity benefit and unemployment benefit? Will he reassure the House that, when incapacity benefit is introduced, those people will not fall through the net between the two benefits?
    Mr. Hague: A decision that a person is capable of work applies to unemployment benefit or the jobseeker's allowance; one cannot have separate decisions for separate benefits. People who apply for unemployment benefit or the jobseeker's allowance must make themselves available for work and be actively seeking work, but within the limits of their physical or mental condition.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware of the welcome that has been given to the recognition in the arrangements for the transition to incapacity benefit that older people aged 58 and above deserve special consideration? May I therefore ask my hon. Friend to consider introducing a similarly sensitive recognition into the permanent arrangements for assessing eligibility? Will he consider whether it will really be necessary to put older claimants through the same hoops as younger claimants?
    Mr. Hague: I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the transitional arrangements. He will understand that it will be very important to ensure that the new test is fairly applied, and is seen to be fairly applied, and that incapacity benefit is awarded fairly throughout the population. That must be uppermost in our minds.
    Mr. Bradley: Can the Minister account for the huge discrepancy in the different estimates of the number of people likely to lose benefit because of the new incapacity medical test? In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in December 1994, it was estimated that 220,000 people would lose over the first two years. By January, according to the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the figure had risen to 285,000 over two years. Estimates in The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mirror only last week showed that 200,000 would lose in the first year alone. Will the Minister come clean on how many people will fail the test and lose benefit? Is it not a hollow sham when the Minister claims that there will be no losers of benefit at the point of change between invalidity benefit and incapacity benefit?
    Mr. Hague: No, the hon. Gentleman may have been confused by recent press comment, but that is because it is misinformed and certainly bears no relation to the figures published by the Government, which we stand by. In contrast to recent speculation, we expect that the majority of new applicants for the new benefit will be found to be incapable of work. However, we expect 55,000 additional cases a year out of 320,000 new claims to be found

    5
    capable. In the next two years, we expect 220,000 existing recipients to be found to be capable of work. Those figures will remain estimates until we see what happens over the coming years, but they are the best estimates available to us, and we stand by them.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my hon. Friend for his original answer and for his work on this matter. Does he agree that it is absolutely essential to have standardised tests that are seen to be fair and consistent?
    Mr. Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend puts the point well. The new system will ensure the continuation of benefits for people who are sick and disabled, and it will do so in a way that is sustainable, affordable and fair and can be justified to the taxpayers who finance the social security system. That is the purpose of our reforms.

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many British citizens have to date been refused benefits because of the habitual residence test.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): One thousand six hundred and thirty-three British citizens have not satisfied the habitual residence test when claiming income support in the four months since 1 August.
    Mr. Madden: Is it not extraordinary that, when the Secretary of State announced the scheme to the Conservative party conference, he did not admit that it would apply to British citizens, whereas Irish citizens are exempt from it? Is it not extraordinary—this has been admitted to me—that the Department made a mistake in applying the test to people seeking political asylum? An application for judicial review of the whole scheme has been made, so would it not be sensible to scrap the scheme before any more British citizens are denied benefits to which they are undoubtedly fully entitled?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that Irish citizens have a privileged position over and above citizens of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly reasonable that those who have made their lives elsewhere in the world who were originally British citizens or who can claim patrial citizenship should be subject to the test. Why should someone who has come over here on a backpacking holiday from Canada and who has two British grandparents have the right to top up their income on holiday with income support? No hon. Member would think that that is right.
    The Department works on the basis of advice from the adjudicating officer. It is possible that he is changing his advice on the need to apply the test to those who are seeking asylum. That would considerably ease administration of the test.
    Dr. Spink: As the habitual residence test enables this country to prevent backpackers from coming here on holiday and living off our benefits system, and thereby removing money from our benefits system on which vulnerable people rely and need, is it not extraordinary that Labour Members appear to care more for foreigners than for our own vulnerable constituents?
    Mr. Lilley: I am sure that my hon. Friend reflects the views of 99.9 per cent. of people in this country. I should
    6
    make it clear that we welcome backpackers from all countries, but we do not think it necessary to entice them with the offer of income support.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department will withdraw the Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) (Transitional) Regulations 1974 and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) General Regulations 1974.
    Mr. Hague: No.
    Mr. Miller: In the light of the criticism that the Department has received from the ombudsman in respect of the disability living allowance and the Child Support Agency, and in the light of concerns that have been expressed by several organisations representing people with disabilities, does not the Minister think that he should withdraw the regulations and reflect on them, or is the House expected to sit back and wait for a hat trick of disasters from the Department?
    Mr. Hague: Great care has been taken to ensure that incapacity benefit is fairly and properly implemented. The training of Benefits Agency medical doctors is under way, departmental administrative procedures are being prepared carefully and I have every confidence that the necessary preparations are being made. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that great work went into the development of the medical test with an expert panel last year. The test was exhaustively tested on real cases by real doctors, and we are confident that it works as it was intended.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the past 10 years, when the health of the nation generally has progressed steadily, the number of people in receipt of invalidity benefit has more than doubled to 1.5 million? Does not that show the absolute necessity of targeting payments on the people who really need them?
    Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend is right. The number of invalidity benefit claimants has risen from 740,000 in 1983 to more than 1.6 million today. During that time, GPs have often been put in an invidious position. It is right to reform the benefit, and right to do so in the way that we have proposed.

    Bronchitis and Emphysema
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the regulations on claims for benefit under the bronchitis and emphysema benefit scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hague: I am advised on the prescription of occupational diseases under the industrial injuries scheme by the independent Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The council announced last week that it is undertaking a review of the present terms of prescription.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Minister join me in trying to influence the advisory body on two issues that involve the regulations on bronchitis and emphysema? The first is the X-ray, as a number of claimants who were rejected for benefit have, after death, been proved to have had pneumoconiosis. That system is unfair.

    7
    The second issue is the forced expiratory volume test, under which a claimant must prove a loss of a litre of breath into his lungs per second. People who are finding it difficult to breathe are being rejected for benefit because of the test, and I consider that to be callous and unfair. Will the Minister join me in pressing for the abolition of the X-ray from the procedure, and for a revision of the FEV test to make it more fair and equitable to claimants?
    Mr. Hague: The council has a difficult job in ensuring that it proposes qualifying conditions to Ministers that ensure that benefit is paid to miners and ex-miners whose disability can most confidently be attributed to coal dust, rather than to other causes such as smoking. The council has now initiated a review of the qualifying conditions and evidence can be given to that review until 14 April. I strongly encourage the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he passes his evidence—including evidence about his constituents, about whom he has written to me—to the council so that it can take it fully into account before giving advice to Ministers.

    Benefits
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve benefits to widows and the elderly.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Widows and pensioners will gain from the general uprating of benefits, in line with inflation, which will take effect in April.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister explain why the widow's payment, which was announced in 1985, has never been uprated by a single penny, despite the fact that it replaced a benefit that was increased in line with inflation every year? According to an answer that I received from the Minister, the widow's payment should now be £1,881, yet it is still only £1,000. It is despicable not to increase payments at any time, but why do the Government cheat widows at a time of bereavement?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: Payment of the widow's payment is subject to a regular review by the Department. It must be borne in mind that we have finite resources, for which there are competing priorities. It is simply a question of concentrating help where it is most needed.
    Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency has the largest proportion of pensioners in the country. Will he confirm that, from April, the poorest pensioner couples will receive at least £100 a week and that, on top of that, their housing costs will be paid in full? Is not that a substantial measure of the Government's concern for the poorest of our elderly people?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right and he confirms what I said in my answer. Even the poorest pensioners—the bottom 20 per cent. of income groups—have seen significant real increases of more than 10 per cent. in their incomes since 1979.
    Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I give notice that, because of that atrocious reply—even by the standards of this Government—I intend to raise the subject on the Adjournment?

    Habitual Residence Test
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have failed the habitual residence test since its introduction; how many of those decisions have been appealed against; and how many such appeals have been won.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): Provisional figures from the Benefits Agency show that 12,571 income support claimants have not satisfied the habitual residence test in the five months from 1 August 1994. Figures for housing benefit refusals are not available. Information on appeals is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
    Mr. Purchase: Given the cheap answer that we heard earlier to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), with the gallery playing and stereotyping of backpackers, and given the number of people affected by the regulations, is not it time that we were given an opportunity to debate the matter properly and thoroughly on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman should address that request to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Government are perfectly happy to defend the regulations at any opportunity.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the cost of housing benefit will be £10 billion this year and that, until he altered the regulations, rents of up to £350 a week had been claimed under housing benefit? May I therefore welcome the reforms that he has introduced?
    Mr. Evans: Yes.
    Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister gets carried away with his verbosity, will his Department conduct an investigation into the plight of individuals and families, but particularly children, who have failed the habitual residence test? As a result of that failure, they lose housing benefit; as a result, some of them are evicted from housing; and, as a result, some of the children face being taken into care. Instead of considering the consequences of speeches made by the Secretary of State to the Tory party conference, as a way of playing to the gallery, will he consider the consequences of the test for the poor of this country?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's indulgent rhetoric is a gross exaggeration. The Government obviously bear in mind and keep under review the operations of the test.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, without the habitual residence test, British benefits would be available to any foreign scroungers who came to this country to finance their holidays? Does he believe that that is now Labour party policy?
    Mr. Roger Evans: The last part of my hon. Friend's question is not for me to answer, but, on the first part, the point is very clear: are British taxpayers to be expected to pay benefits at current levels to anybody and everybody who comes within the confines of the United Kingdom? The Government have taken the view that there must be some sensible and reasonable limit.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to place a cap on housing benefit for eligible tenants.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about spending on housing benefit.
    Mr. Roger Evans: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced measures to take effect from October 1995 in his uprating statement, which will limit housing benefit paid on private sector rents where they are above the average for the area.
    Mr. Cohen: Is not Government policy on housing benefit a shambles, for which the Government look like making private tenants pay? The Government rely on the private sector for housing and have deregulated many private tenancies, but the Department of Social Security does not want to pick up the cost implications of that policy. If the Government are to change housing benefit, will they ensure that protection from eviction for tenants is included?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's point is a gross exaggeration and, indeed, is simply untrue. To expect the British taxpayer to subsidise rents of several hundred pounds a week is simply unreasonable and would rightly cause public outrage. Even in the Greater London area, 95 per cent. of private sector rents are lower than £85 a week. The Government say that there must be some fair reciprocity between the burdens on taxpayers and the recipients. That is why there must be some cap based on the average rent for the area in which a person lives.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that housing benefit distorts the marketplace? Is he aware that, in my constituency, people may receive as much as £250 a week or £13,000 a year in benefits? Does not that cost taxpayers a lot of money and force up all rents in the private sector?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no doubt whatever that there is an incentive to distort the market. That is why housing benefit has doubled in cost since 1988 and will cost £10 billion in 1994–95. It is fair and reasonable that the rents that my hon. Friend mentioned should not be wholly subsidised by taxpayers when they are out of line with average rents for the area.
    Mr. Frank Field: To what extent is the escalating housing benefit budget caused by landlords pushing up rents or making fraudulent claims?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that such an estimate is extremely difficult to make. On the first of his two causations, when taxpayers write an open blank cheque, which is the danger with the existing system, there is obviously an incentive for some people to take advantage of it. The policy has been successful in terms of stimulating the private rented sector, which had been in the doldrums since 1919, when the Labour party interfered with the free market in private rents, but there must be some control for the benefit of the taxpayer, which is why we are limiting benefit to the average rent for the area.
    Mr. Congdon: Despite my hon. Friend's figures for average rents in London, does he agree that housing
    10
    benefit has been used to subsidise rents to the tune of up to £350 week? Does he agree that taxpayers will welcome the decision to cap housing benefit as it will represent better value for taxpayers and ensure that they do not subsidise luxury rents?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right. The figures that he mentioned are generally believed to be far too high.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister admit that that position has been caused by deregulation of the private rented sector, which his Government inaugurated in the first place? Private tenants are already being ripped off for below-standard accommodation in many instances. Instead of making them pay by possible eviction, why will not the Government regulate the private rented sector to save money for taxpayers, or, better still, have a proper housing policy so that we can house our people in affordable, decent homes?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Lady gives the game away if she really suggests that it is Labour party policy to re-impose some form of rent control in the private sector. [Interruption.] There is all the difference in the world between limiting a public subsidy and interfering with the free workings of the market. What the Government propose—
    Mr. Battle: It is called subsidising landlords.
    Mr. Evans: The elementary economic ignorance of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen is palpable.

    Income Support
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons were in receipt of income support (a) on 1 December 1992 and (b) on 1 December 1994; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Roger Evans: The information requested is not available in the precise form requested. However, the total number of claimants as at November 1992 was 5.5 million and, as at February 1994, 5.8 million.
    Mr. Dunn: Family credit benefits more than half a million working families by making it worth their while to work. Will my hon. Friend compare it with the minimum wage, which destroys jobs?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes two forceful points, and I respectfully agree with him.
    Mr. Pike: If the Government accept and believe that income support is the absolute minimum that people need to live on, why is it that when people on income support need assistance from the social fund, they are given loans which the Government tell them that they have to pay back out of income support?
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has asked me questions on that topic before. He has not appreciated the basic point that income may be regular week after week under income support, whereas people's actual needs may vary from week to week, depending on their circumstances or needs. The system of loans offered under the social fund has been strikingly successful; it has helped five times as many people with loans, which are almost entirely repaid. That is more than we could hope for if we made simple grants.

    Personal Pensions
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the flexibility of personal pensions in retirement.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We propose to introduce two measures: age-related rebates, which will make appropriate personal pensions attractive across a wider age range; and more flexible use of personal pensions savings, which will allow personal pension holders to draw an income from their fund each year and defer annuity purchase until a time of their choosing up to the age of 75.
    Mr. Duncan: I welcome those measures. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no intention of introducing the so-called minimum pension guarantee, as advocated by the Commission on Social Justice and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he agree that a Government would never be able to deliver such a guarantee in 20 years' time? That proposal would stop people taking out flexible personal pensions, yet such pensions offer people the real guarantee of being able to provide for themselves in their old age.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party's proposals amount to further means testing.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is it not the case that, as well as making personal pensions more attractive, the Government are making the state earnings-related pension scheme less attractive by adjusting the outcome in the adjusted formula proposed in the Pensions Bill? People will still have to contribute the same amount of money to SERPS, but, eventually, they will receive £2.50 less as the outcome.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The amount is not £2.50 for every pensioner. As this is the first time that he has raised the subject, the hon. Gentleman has apparently only just discovered the change to the annualisation of SERPS, which was announced in June. That change is necessary to restore the original intention behind the SERPS calculation, which provided that SERPS should be uprated in line with earnings. For various technical reasons, SERPS has gone up even faster than earnings since 1979.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures the Government are taking to help disabled people.
    Mr. Hague: On 12 January, the Government introduced the Disability Discrimination Bill, which will outlaw discrimination against disabled people in employment and in access to goods and services. It will create a National Disability Council, which will be a powerful voice on matters relating to discrimination.
    We have also announced a series of measures to combat discrimination against disabled people in transport and in education.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating those organisations that worked so hard in consultation with the Government on their proposals, including Action for Better Access for the Disabled, which does valuable work in my constituency
    12
    and in the surrounding area? Will he also confirm that the proposals contained in the Bill go much further than those contained in the consultation document?
    Mr. Hague: Yes. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those organisations—more than 1,000 of them—which responded to the Government's consultation document, which was published in July. Many of them asked us to do things which we have, in the light of those representations, decided to do—for example, to include financial services within the legal framework that we propose and to require alterations to be made to existing premises to end discrimination against disabled people.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister understand that the Bill is not mainly about services and benefits, important as they are, but about the civil rights of people with disabilities? Does he therefore agree that, although it is proposed to exclude firms with fewer than 20 employees from the need to implement the new employment rights, that threshold should be lowered over a defined period so that all job discrimination can be ended?
    Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman must understand that 83 per cent. of employees work for firms with 20 or more employees, so the proposed new arrangements on employment law will cover the vast majority of the work force. Of course we must have regard to the difficulties that would confront small businesses in implementing complex new legislation. We must not get into a position whereby we drive small businesses out of business to help one part of the community; that is absolutely not the intention of the legislation. However, we shall cover the vast majority of the work force and make a lasting change in the way in which disabled people are treated.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, by proposing sensible, practical and fair measures, the Government's Bill will gain much wider acceptance than would be gained by proposals that have not been properly considered or consulted upon?
    Mr. Hague: Yes. It is vital that we carry the whole country with us in ending discrimination against disabled people. It is not simply a matter of changing legislation and changing rules; it is also a question of changing attitudes and changing the psychology of millions of people throughout the country. That is why it is so important to carry people with us, as my hon. Friend says.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Science and Research
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the total amount spent on science and research in the United Kingdom; and if he will list the proportions paid for by Government and by other sources of funding.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): Approximately £13,000 million, of which 35 per cent. is paid for by Government.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply about the amount spent on research and development. Can he confirm that the Government proportion is greater than the average of our competitor nations, and that, unfortunately, the business proportion is slightly less than the average of our competitor nations?

    13
    What can he do to encourage businesses to realise that research and development is the cornerstone of their future prosperity?
    Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment of the present position, but today's gross domestic product figures show that the UK is truly top of the premier league for growth in Europe, and we intend to stay there. The best way to ensure that we do so is to invest in the future, and to urge industry to do the same. Investing in the future means investing in research and development, and it is good news that industry's investment in R and D has increased, according to the latest figures, by 3 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Nigel Jones: Bearing in mind the fact that Britain invests less, as a proportion of GDP, than do our major competitors—France, Germany, Japan and the United States of America—what plans does the Chancellor have to help Britain do better?
    Mr. Hunt: In comparison with other G7 countries, we do reasonably well, but of course we can do better. Our approach, through the technology foresight programme and through the forward look, following up the policies set out in the science White Paper, is to continue to urge the greatest possible investment in research and development, to set an example in Government, which we have done by ensuring that the science budget is now at record levels, and to maintain those record levels in the next financial year.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the way in which the Government give greater accent to developmental expenditure as opposed to pure research expenditure?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes. We have increased the science budget by 32 per cent. in real terms in the past 15 years. My hon. Friend is right that we want an increasing emphasis on a partnership between the public sector and the private sector, especially to enable that basic research, which has always been fundamental in the United Kingdom to the strength of our science base, to be translated by proper investment, in partnership with the private sector, into the developmental stage. I completely agree with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Battle: The Minister spoke of us doing reasonably well in comparison 'with our competitors. 'Will the Minister then explain why, in spite of an overall budget cut in Japan recently, Japan's science and technology spending, through the Science and Technology Agency, was increased by 7 per cent., there was a 26 per cent. increase in funding of the human genome project and a 20.5 per cent. increase in the real world computing project, yet Britain continues to slip further behind, with overall real terms cuts in research and development this year? Does that not demonstrate that the Conservative Government only pay lip-service to science as an aid to wealth generation, and that, effectively, Ministers sit on the sidelines, while the science budget withers away?
    Mr. Hunt: I am not often driven to say, "What a load of rubbish!"; I shall riot be tempted to do so on this occasion. The hon. Gentleman, however, is not comparing like with like. We compare very favourably with investment in Japan. The hon. Gentleman talked about the science budget "wilting away". The science budget is at
    14
    a record level in this financial year— [HON. MEMBERS: "Overall?"] I am quoting the hon. Gentleman; he said, "the science budget is wilting away." The science budget is at a record high level; it is up by 32 per cent. in real terms. I shall take the hon. Gentleman more seriously when he comes armed with the correct information.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Bearing in mind the amount spent on research and development in the United Kingdom and how it is spent, will my right hon. Friend think carefully, before he makes a visit to South Africa, about whether it would be appropriate for our Government to encourage, let alone assist, the South Africans to make a further major commitment to developing their arms industry? Surely that is not what we really wish for them or for the other countries that would suffer as a result.
    Mr. Hunt: As my hon. Friend knows, we have devoted an increasing proportion of our research and development budget to civil research. I welcome the opportunity to go to South Africa and to encourage it to develop the sort of policies, which we have seen in the United Kingdom, that foster an ever-closer partnership between the public and private sectors. Similarly, I have recently been to other countries, seeking to set up important relationships between our leading scientists and theirs. I hope that my hon. Friend shares my wish to see that relationship grow stronger.

    Research Council Funds
    Ms Glenda Jackson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of research council funds in 1993–94 was allocated to the 12 institutions which are the largest consumers of those funds.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert G. Hughes): The amount allocated was £319 million, which is 50 per cent. of total grant awards.
    Ms Jackson: What justification can there be for allocating half the research council funds to a mere handful of institutions? Is that not a return to the, surely discredited, binary system which favoured research-based over teaching-based institutions? What plans do the Government have to ensure that future research council funds will be more widely and evenly distributed?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady is utterly wrong. The awards are made on the basis of merit, which is something that I do not expect the Labour party particularly to understand. Awards are made on the basis of a full and fair external peer review, not political diktat. That is the way in which to do it and that is the way in which we shall continue to do it.
    Mr. Fabricant: With the exciting news today that Britain may soon have the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, with the possible merger of Glaxo and Wellcome, can my hon. Friend tell us the extent to which the research councils, especially since the publication of the science White Paper, are being encouraged to co-operate with industry in research and development?
    Mr. Hughes: We always encourage full co-operation. Indeed, through the technology foresight process, there has been unprecedented co-operation between business, academics and scientists. That is very much to be

    15
    welcomed. As my hon. Friend says, the strength of Britain's pharmaceutical industry and, indeed, of all our chemical industry is impressive. It is important that we should spread that drive and enthusiasm to the rest of our science and engineering industries.

    Efficiency
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what ways efficiencies in public services are being achieved.
    Mr. David Hunt: Numerous.
    Mr. Merchant: In the light of the success of the "Competing for Quality" programme and the recent report by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, which stressed that the pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness in the civil service was never-ending, does my right hon. Friend agree that the programme should continue and that it is in the interests of the taxpayer that it should do so because it not only ensures that maximum benefit is returned from finite resources but ensures high-quality services at the same time?
    Mr. Hunt: Yes, we shall certainly do everything that we can to redouble our efforts under that very important programme, the strategic importance of which was recognised in the recent report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The programme is producing savings of more than £400 million per year against an outlay of £23 million per year, which is very good value for money.
    Mr. McNamara: Given that, when the civil service was allowed to make in-house tenders it was successful in work to the value of 73 per cent., will the Minister lift his blanket objection to in-house tenders for all available work so that the civil service can make in-house bids? Does his savings account include the EDS contract and the Aldermaston atomic weapons agency establishment? Finally, are the more than 10,000 posts which are yet to be lost additional to, or included in, the losses that were announced by the Chancellor in his Budget statement?
    Mr. Hunt: My reply to the hon. Gentleman is that I am satisfied with the present policy. Obviously, in-house tenders should be encouraged where appropriate and they should compete on an equal basis. We shall endeavour to ensure that that occurs, but in certain cases that is not possible.
    When we have put out to open tender, it has been an extremely successful operation. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the detailed analysis that we produced on the day that we announced the very impressive results of the "Competing for Quality" programme, he will find the answers to the questions that he has raised.

    Charter Marks
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public service units have been awarded a charter mark to date.
    Mr. David Hunt: Some 227.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that three of those public service units are located in the London borough of Croydon—the consumer advisory service, the environmental health department and the continuing
    16
    education and training service? Does he agree that winning the mark is recognition of the high quality of those organisations and that members of the public should be encouraged to nominate those departments which provide services that deserve the charter mark?
    Mr. Hunt: I join my hon. Friend in his pride over what has been achieved in his local area. As he will know, we have decided that, as the initiative for the honours system met with a warm public response with nominations for recognising suitable people, we would now like to open up the charter mark procedure to public nominations. We will announce the detail of how we propose to proceed in due course. I welcome my hon. Friend's support for that policy.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Secretary of State agree that the charter mark awarded to British Gas should be withdrawn immediately, given today's disgraceful news that it is considering charging £25 for home visits to elderly and disabled people?
    Mr. Hunt: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is engaging in scaremongering. With regard to the second part of her question, I am very happy to make it clear that British Gas has confirmed today that there will be no service cuts to elderly, blind or disabled customers. I am also happy to confirm that the Government are determined that all suppliers of gas will have to offer special services for elderly, disabled or blind persons.
    In relation to the first part of the question, I have received a letter from the Gas Consumers Council—which I have before me—dated 18 January. It says:
    "we have faith in British Gas as a company that puts safety first and deservedly earned the Charter Mark, for past performance, in 1993".
    The letter goes on to raise some current concerns. I am very happy to confirm that I will consider any specific concerns and seek to establish the facts before deciding on any further action.

    Research Council Funds
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to announce the organisations which will be expected to apply for research council funds.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: As soon as possible.
    Mrs. Campbell: When will the Minister honour his promise, made in the White Paper, that organisations other than universities and research council institutes will be eligible to apply for those funds? When he honours that promise, will he ensure that additional funds are transferred into research council budgets to cover the cost of the applications, or will university research funding be depleted yet again?
    Mr. Hughes: As the whole House and the science community know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor achieved stunning success in increasing the science budget. We will announce soon how that money will be used. We consulted widely on recommendations arising from the efficiency scrutiny of public sector research establishments and we will announce the outcome as soon as possible. It has not been possible to

    17
    do so yet because we agreed to include some representations that were made late—as I believe the House would have wanted us to do.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend consider the case of charitable organisations, particularly in the medical sector, that raise considerable amounts of money for research? I declare an interest in the National Asthma Campaign. Would my hon. Friend consider encouraging larger donations to research by adopting a formula whereby the Medical Research Council might back by a ratio of 2:1 or 3:1 the money raised by charities and spent specifically on research into the medical problems with which they are concerned?
    Mr. Hughes: The money that comes from charities for scientific research and development is absolutely vital. We welcome it, as does the scientific community. It is important that the interrelationship between Government money, other money going into higher education institutions and funding from charities, as well as money from the private sector, is integrated and that there is no duplication. All should work together to achieve better results. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks.

    Citizens Charter
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to make the citizens charter justiciable.
    Mr. David Hunt: The citizens charter has already raised the quality of public services right across the board. Where necessary, specific provisions set out in specific charters are backed by legislation.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be greater confidence in the citizens charter if more remedies were available in the courts?
    Mr. Hunt: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. As he probably knows, the citizens charter complaints task force is, as part of its work, examining fairness and independence in the public service complaints system. It published a discussion paper on fairness last September, and it will report to me this summer on the findings of the two-year review of public service handling of complaints. Perhaps we may hold further discussions when I receive that report.
    Mr. O'Hara: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that is precisely the point? I do not decry the citizens charter. As a teacher in the old days, I used to give gold stars to my pupils, and merits may act as incentives to the organisations that win them. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that, among the people whom I represent, the citizens charter has no credibility or currency? People are more concerned with the collapse of services that they see all around them, and the citizens charter is not an adequate substitute.
    Mr. Hunt: It was clever of the hon. Gentleman to cover both extremes of view. I agree with members of the Opposition Front Bench that the citizens charter is here to stay, but I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that it must
    18
    have credibility. There is a series of complaints procedures. It is important that public services not only handle complaints fairly but are seen to do so.

    Foresight Programme
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the foresight programme is now developing.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is developing very well. The Government are grateful for the active support of business, academics and the wider science and technology communities. Reports on the progress will be published in the spring, and the 1995 forward look will outline the Government's initial responses.
    Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has established a lead in high-speed fibre optic networks, which will provide great opportunities for British commerce? Can he tell the House what is being done by the foresight policy panels to take that forward?
    Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many aspects of work done in Britain are the envy of the rest of the world. First, some people say that we have 30 per cent. of all the fibre optic laid in the world. We also have the fastest broad-band communications system--the so-called SuperJANET system—linking many of our universities. We shall be making more use of it. As for the foresight panels, the communications panel has been giving us invaluable advice on how quickly to put in place broad-band services for United Kingdom schools. We want them linked up to the system, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced earlier this month.

    Scientific Equipment
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of scientific equipment used in Government laboratories is manufactured in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Hunt: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that the information that he has requested is not collected centrally in that form.
    Mr. Miller: I thought that that might be the Minister's answer. He ought to keep his eyes open as he goes around Government laboratories. If he did, he would notice that a huge amount of sophisticated equipment which used to be manufactured in the United Kingdom is now imported. Does he agree that that reflects one of our problems—the fact that, although we have quite a powerful science base, our innovation is failing? What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Hunt: I want our manufacturers of scientific equipment to compete successfully right across the world. About 80 per cent. of this country's production of scientific equipment is for export—that is a high-quality export market. Instrumentation and control is a major export industry earner for Britain which produces a positive balance of payment. In the last year for which figures were available, 1992, that industry accounted for £2.1 billion. That is a success story which the hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge.

Child Support
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the White Paper, "Improving Child Support", which I am publishing today. The Child Support Act 1991 established the principle that parents are responsible for their children: both parents, even if they live apart. Taxpayers should pay only to the extent that parents cannot afford to do so. The whole House endorsed that principle, when it passed the Act, without a single dissenting vote. I reaffirm it today.
The whole House, however, has also had growing concerns about the practical application of that principle and the operations of the Child Support Agency. I responded rapidly to early concerns by introducing reforms last February. I promised then to keep the system under review, and I committed the Government to respond positively to the Social Security Select Committee's second report. In the light of that report and the experience of the first year and a half, I am persuaded that further significant change is required.
The proposals in the White Paper incorporate the majority of the Select Committee's recommendations, and in some cases they go further. Altogether, I believe that our proposals will enable the system to achieve its original purpose. They will make maintenance assessments fairer, improve the service offered by the agency and ensure that maintenance assessed becomes maintenance paid. I believe that that is what Parliament wants.
The major focus of criticism of the Child Support Act relates to past settlements of property or capital. Some of those criticisms are based on misconceptions. However much property was transferred, there never could be a clean break from one's children. Parents or the state always could return to court to seek increased child maintenance. Also, the current formula does indirectly reflect property transfers. None the less, it is true that the formula does not explicitly reflect the value of property or capital transfers that were intended to contribute to child maintenance. To establish how much of any past property settlement was in lieu of child maintenance is often very difficult. It involves the exercise of judgment and discretion.
To give the agency and appeal tribunals discretion to amend assessments to reflect past property settlements will require primary legislation. I therefore intend to bring in a Bill in the current Session. But primary legislation means that the new arrangements cannot be up and running before 1996–97, and I want to give some recognition now. So I propose, from this April, to introduce into the formula a broad-brush allowance for past property transfers. It will assume that half the equity belonged to each partner. Where the absent parent transferred more than £5,000 of his share of the equity, there will be set allowances in the formula for amounts falling in three broad bands. Any parents who find that the broad-brush allowance does not sufficiently reflect their property settlement may seek a departure from the formula under the new discretionary powers.
I also propose to allow strictly limited discretion to prevent hardship by taking account of some other expenses that are not in the formula. They will include
20
high costs of visiting children, extra costs of supporting a disabled dependant, exceptional costs of caring for stepchildren and certain debts of the former relationship.
I also intend to make a number of amendments to the maintenance formula. First, I want to encourage people to continue working even where they have to travel long distances. Calculating actual travel costs would be burdensome for everyone. So instead, for parents who live more than 15 miles from their place of employment, I shall introduce a broad-brush allowance. An automatic calculation will avoid the need for detailed inquiries to be made about actual travel costs. If that works out much too high or too low, either parent will in due course be able to apply for a discretionary adjustment.
Secondly, I shall let absent parents who have a new partner or stepchildren deduct all their reasonable housing costs.
Thirdly, I shall put a ceiling on assessments of 30 per cent. of net income, or the minimum of £2.30 a week. So absent parents will be able to keep at least 70 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance. Even those who are also paying off arrears will be allowed to keep at least two thirds of normal net income. That reassurance goes beyond anything recommended by the Select Committee on Social Security, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by the House.
Fourthly, the maximum amount payable under the formula can be very high, especially where there are several children. I intend to halve the maximum additional amount payable above basic maintenance.
In addition, to encourage absent parents to co-operate, where an absent parent provides basic information within four weeks, I shall defer the start of his maintenance liability for eight weeks.
Most of the measures that I have announced will make assessments fairer for absent parents. Indeed, no absent parent will now be able reasonably to refuse to pay his child maintenance. As a result, the measures will also help parents with care and their children by securing maintenance more speedily. Even where maintenance already being paid is reduced as a result of the changes, parents with care on income support will not lose money, as income support is adjusted immediately. However, awards of family credit and disability working allowance are set for six months. For those whose maintenance drops because of the changes, the Government will provide some compensation for the rest of the award period.
Some commentators have argued for maintenance to be disregarded in calculating income support. But that would make it much more difficult for a parent with care to improve her family's standard of living by returning to work. Instead, I propose that parents with care who are on income support or jobseeker's allowance will be able to build up a new maintenance credit of up to £5 a week. That will be paid as a lump sum when they leave benefit for work. It will give parents with care an increased interest in receiving maintenance and enhance their incentive to work.
The Child Support Agency has performed less well than I would wish, despite hard work by its staff. But the agency has already taken steps to improve its performance. In December, the agency announced two measures to help it to manage its outstanding cases. They involve deferring the take-on of parents with care on income support who have not asked or provided sufficient

21
information for the agency to pursue maintenance. All parents with care who continue on benefit will, in due course, be taken on by the agency, and there is no question of deferring action against unco-operative absent parents.
None the less, the policy changes announced today will impose further work on the agency. I do not want it to add unnecessarily to its backlog, but I want it to devote its resources to its current work load. Cases where there was a court order or maintenance agreement before April 1993, and the parent with care is not on benefit, were due to have access to the agency at the initiative of either parent from 1996. I propose to defer take-on of those cases. I shall ensure that they retain the right to use the courts and I shall also give them the right, for a fee, to use the agency's collection and enforcement service.
Some absent parents have suffered, through no fault of their own, from delays in making assessments, resulting in huge bills for arrears. In those cases, we shall not enforce more than six months' arrears, provided the absent parent agrees to pay them and to pay his on-going liability for maintenance. After a year, it will be clear whether the absent parent is meeting his obligation and if so, we shall compensate the parent with care for any financial loss. I have decided to stop charging fees and interest for two years from April 1995. After that, fees will be reintroduced and the interest charged replaced by a late payment penalty.
On Thursday, I intend to lay a set of minor technical amendments to regulations, which will further help the administration of the scheme. Many of the changes that I am announcing today will take effect from this April. The formula will change, interest payments will be abolished and fees will be suspended. The agency will be writing to all its clients about those changes, so there is no need for parents to contact the agency.
Primary legislation is needed to introduce discretion into the maintenance formula and for other changes including deferring take-on of non-benefit cases. Subject to the approval of Parliament, those changes will take effect during 1996–97. From April 1997, the new maintenance credit scheme and late payment penalties will start and fees will be reintroduced. None of those changes will apply retrospectively.
Legislation involving children, broken families and money will always arouse strong emotions. That is certainly the experience of Australia's Child Support Agency, even after six years of operation. The changes will improve our child support scheme for both parents. They will take account of property or capital settlements, give flexibility to prevent hard cases, allow for high travel-to-work costs, help absent parents with step-families, reduce the maximum level of maintenance and ensure that absent parents normally keep more than 70 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance. Those changes should encourage and enable more absent parents to pay child maintenance regularly. As a result, they will give more parents with care and their children the chance of a better life and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Does the Minister understand the relief that, at last, there is movement on his part, after years of inaction? Does he share my dismay, however, that the chaos and bitterness
22
surrounding the Child Support Agency has seriously undermined the very principles that the system was brought into being to defend?
I recognise that the White Paper offers changes to a wide range of issues. Does the Minister agree that the test is the practical impact of the proposed reforms, and that it is in that light that the Opposition and the country will judge them?
We welcome the introduction of a discretion to depart from the over-rigid financial formula, in cases where there is real hardship. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that we shall want to study with particular care the grounds and the definition of additional expenses? If the changes do not attack the causes of discontent, the damage may well be fatal.
Why did the Minister reject the machinery of the review office system that was pioneered in Australia, which at least appeared to be administratively convenient and offered an independence of judgment that many thought lacking in his present proposals?
Does the Minister recall that, time after time, we have called for just such a reform—the introduction of a discretionary element, through an independent review procedure—only to be repulsed with a lack of sympathy and sensitivity that I hope he now regrets? It is apparently intended that so-called clean-break settlements prior to April 1993 should be in the remit of the new appeal procedure. Will the Minister, however, say a little more about future cases and the perhaps unhappily christened broad-brush approach? With that, a great deal depends on the practical effect.
The formula that illustrates bands and the impact on exempt income will not make immediate sense to everyone. Is not it important—I put particular emphasis on this—in this case and, indeed, with every part of the package, that the Minister makes the impact transparent? Will he publish examples of the impact of those various provisions on typical cases and, where necessary, on a range of assumptions? Does not he agree that that is the best way in which to inform public debate?
Will the Minister note that there will be welcome on Opposition Benches for the translation of the advisory guidelines that no liable parent will pay more than 30 per cent. of net income, or 33 per cent. including arrears, into legislative form? There is plenty of evidence that in practice the financial formula has breached those guidelines in many thousands of cases. Is not it a striking comment on the failure of the system when a total of—I think—40,000 cases was quoted to the Select Committee where the guidelines had not been met? That clearly came as a shock and a surprise to Ministers.
On other changes in the financial formula, subject to further study, we are prepared to offer support. I am thinking specifically of the change to housing costs. However, may I remind the Minister again that those tardy moves reflect pressure from hon. Members of all parties, which he has long resisted? Will he also note that, at first acquaintance, the broad-brush approach to travel costs borders on the crude?
On administration, too, the Minister is giving ground and not before time. The incentive to co-operate represented by an eight-week moratorium on liability for arrears and the protected income provision where deduction from earnings applies are useful, but I suspect that, in impact, they are very modest changes. Will he

23
note that the cap on arrears at six months, as a form of remission for good behaviour, is welcome, especially as it is linked to compensation for the parent with care, which is a particularly important safeguard and feature?
Does the Minister accept that the so-called maintenance credit, no more than a poor relation of the back-to-work bonus, will simply not do? Does not he realise that parents with care living on income support need help now, not a possible windfall at some future date? Is not there a danger that the households where work will be difficult to come by will be the least likely to pick up the divvy? Would not it have been wiser and more in line with the social purpose of the 1991 Act to establish the principle of disregard, even if at a modest level? Why is the proposal on such a slow fuse and not coming into effect into April 1997, when other changes are being introduced this April?
May I ask about the deferment of take-up of cases by the agency, when no state benefit is involved and there is a court order or written maintenance agreement? Does deferment mean that those cases will become the agency's responsibility at the earliest possible point, as soon as administrative capacity allows? Does the Minister accept that it is important to establish what is intended, as otherwise some will charge that the Child Support Agency is rough justice for those on benefit, while the courts protect the better-off? Would not that become a problem, if there were a perceived continuing differential in awards between courts and the agency?
The House will note that none of those changes will apply retrospectively. I accept that there are difficulties, but does the Minister recognise that that may cause major problems? The day before the House of Commons rose for the Christmas recess, he announced that 350,000 cases were being shelved by administrative fiat. When those cases come back into the system, are the individuals concerned to benefit from the changes announced? Is not there a danger, if that is so, that they will be seen as being advantaged as a result of the agency's own inefficiency and, in some cases, perhaps more seriously, will not it be a matter of non-co-operation unfairly rewarded?
Opposition Members want reform. We want reform that gives a better service to both sides of a broken partnership and we want reform that will take some of the stress and strain off the staff of the CSA who have been put under, at times, almost unendurable pressure. May I make it clear that we shall not unnecessarily obstruct the legislation when it comes forward? There will be no call from the Opposition Front Bench for trench warfare. However, we reserve the right to weigh the merits of the proposals, to scrutinise properly and to try to strengthen the Bill in Committee in the public interest.
The tragedy is that reform which might have made an impact 18 months ago will now have to contend with the bitterness that has built up in the system. Is not it clear to everyone involved in the argument—many of whom, honourably, are on the Conservative Benches—that the delay is deeply regretted? The fact that Ministers have had to be driven to action by public pressure and parliamentary anger is a considerable downside.
24
Does the Secretary of State recall that, as recently as 4 July last year, sheltering behind the very marginal changes made the previous February, he said:
"We must not put the improvements in performance that we are achieving at risk by introducing unnecessarily disruptive changes".—[Official Report, 4 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 43.]
That is a prime example of complacency writ large.
The Opposition believe firmly in the duty of a parent to contribute to the maintenance of his or her child. This is perhaps our last chance in this Parliament to get matters right. I hope that the changes will undo some of the damage caused by delay and restore a measure of public confidence to the child support system.
Mr. Lilley: Assuming that the hon. Gentleman was welcoming the changes, I am grateful for his welcome. I welcome the fact that he has consistently supported, as the whole House has, the underlying principle that the changes are designed to reinforce and uphold.
However, the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong to suggest that there has been inaction since the agency was established. He ignores the changes that were introduced last February and the fact that it would have been impossible to introduce a Bill in the previous Session. Had we done that, it would not have been able to undertake the changes that we are now proposing.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the administrative problems that the agency has experienced, and we are doing all in our power to overcome them. He said that he would look closely at the system of departures from the formula and he seemed to want them to be as open-ended as possible. We believe that it would be wrong to have a wholly open-ended system of discretion, which would amount to going back to the courts and which would allow the system to be degraded, unfair and unsystematic. However, we believe that it is right that there should be limited discretion to deal with the hard cases that have caused hon. Members concern.
The hon. Gentleman complained about, or thought that he might have complaints about, the broad-brush approach to dealing with past property settlements. That broad-brush system cannot be satisfactory on its own. Had it been possible to deal satisfactorily with the problem of past property settlements simply through changes in the formula, I would have preferred to do it that way. However, it is necessary to have an element of discretion as well, and that requires primary legislation; that is why I am introducing it. I wanted to ensure that the change in the formula was in place as soon as possible from April, to deal with the situation as best we can in the interim.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to make available worked examples of how some of the changes will affect people. I have asked my officials to place some worked examples in the Library. I hope that they will be available by the time that I finish my comments.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned rightly the 30 per cent. limit on maintenance assessments as a percentage of net income. A proportion of people were retaining less than 70 per cent. of net income. That was never intended or expected from the simulations carried out before the agency began its operations. I thought that it would be much better to place that hard and fast cap on maintenance assessments so that when stories abound that people are being left with only a tiny fraction of their income, people

25
will know that those stories simply are not true—[Interruption.] They will not be true when we have this cap. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] People will know that.
The only circumstances in which people may have large assessments relative to their income will be when they have refused to co-operate with the agency and to give any details of their income. People can rapidly resolve that problem by co-operating with the agency and providing the necessary details.
The hon. Gentleman complained that the travel-to-work broad-brush element in the formula was too crude. He simply cannot have it both ways and say, on the one hand, that we are in danger of creating additional administrative problems, and then object to a simpler way of dealing with a problem without imposing a huge administrative burden such as would be required if everyone had to confirm, identify and provide bills and details to show their travel costs over the past year.
The hon. Gentleman says that the maintenance credit will not do. He is conspicuously unwilling to say what he would do in terms of a maintenance disregard, which he would like. He had previously costed his own proposal at £340 million. That is not a sensible and priority use of public money. It would act as a disincentive to work and it would be unfair as between those who did and did not have maintenance.
It is sensible to defer the take-on of pre-1993 cases where there is no taxpayer interest because those people are not on benefit and they already have an agreement or a maintenance order from the courts, and to give them continued access to the courts if they wish any changes. There will be power on the statute book to bring them into the purview of the agency, but that can be done only with the approval of the House.
The 350,000 cases that the hon. Gentleman says were shelved were not shelved. There always has been a phased take-on of people, and we are rightly trying to get the backlog down before we take on new benefit cases where the mother has not requested us to do so. Parents with care who request early help from the agency will be given priority, as now.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the problems that staff have often faced and the hostility and often adverse treatment that they have had, which the whole House deplores. I welcome his assurance that that. will not be a matter for trench warfare. All of us have an interest in ensuring that we improve the system of child maintenance, so that more maintenance is paid more rapidly to more parents with care and their children.
Sir David Madel: May I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, particularly in respect of the change in the travel-to-work arrangements, which will be welcomed by my constituency and others in commuting areas? Will he say a little more about the Child Support Agency automatically writing to people? Does it mean that., when people are in dispute with the Child Support Agency, it will write to them and tell them that a new appeals system is coming in? If people trigger the appeals system, will they be entitled to legal aid?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the changes to take account of people who travel reasonably long distances to work. They will be welcomed by those who commute a long way. The agency
26
will write and tell people about the changes and about how they influence them. It will, however, point out that the appeals process—the discretionary system—will not come in until 1996–97. The formula changes will be applied, wherever possible, automatically from April this year, but people may be asked to give some information to trigger off the travel-to-work changes in the formula to their benefit. There should be no question of or need for legal aid.
Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but I wish that it had come sooner, before many parents had suffered so many problems. However, he has not properly answered the question about why he did not bring in a proper maintenance disregard of, say, £15, so that parents with care would not have their benefit withdrawn pound for pound. That would have benefited the children. I welcome his taking into account the cost of visiting the child by the parent without care, but the Secretary of State does not state the distance beyond which that measure would be brought in. I would be grateful for information on that point.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the changes. The change in child contact is that it will be a ground for appeal to seek a departure from the formula when people have exceptional costs. We shall spell out that point in secondary legislation, but obviously it will not be just any costs if someone lives just around the corner. As far as a disregard is concerned, we have not proposed a disregard—let alone one of the order that the hon. Lady suggests—because it would cost about £340 million. We take seriously the remarks of her hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who was criticising the Labour party at the weekend for its reckless spending of public money by making promises that it could not possibly fulfil.
Mr. Michael Shersby: I am most grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon. During his statement, he said that he wanted people to keep working. Does he accept that it is necessary for many second wives to work? Has he therefore given consideration to allowing the inescapable costs of child-minding to be taken into account when making the calculations?
Mr. Lilley: It is important to give parents with care the opportunity to work, and to remove disincentives. A great many parents have said that they wish to work, and the maintenance credit will be welcomed as simultaneously enhancing and reinforcing that incentive and enabling parents to make the move back into work.
It would not be justifiable to give the desire of a second partner to go to work— rather than staying at home to look after her children—priority over one's obligation to maintaining a first family. I cannot see how that can be done at the expense of the first family.
Mr. Frank Field: May I thank the Secretary of State for implementing many of the proposals that the Select Committee considered, including some—such as the independent appeals tribunal—which his hon. Friends voted down in Committee? As non-payment of maintenance already puts between 2p and 3p on the standard rate of tax, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House and many millions of mothers and children have a vested interest in making sure that the agency

27
works? Will he therefore tell us how much new money the agency is raising, and whether it is performing more effectively in raising funds than the system that it replaced?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and for the helpful and influential report that his Committee produced. We have endeavoured to take on board the bulk of the recommendations that the Committee put forward, or at least the substance of them.
With regard to the appeals tribunal, my reading of the report was that there was a proposal for a simple formula that would not take into account many factors that were already taken into account by our system. In turn, that formula would have required a practically open-ended discretionary system to deal with all those circumstances, which would then not have been taken into account. The last thing that we wanted to do was to go back to an open-ended discretionary system, like the courts. My hon. Friends will tell me whether that is a correct analysis of the decisions that were taken in the Committee, but a limited discretionary system— such as we propose— with fairly closely circumscribed opportunities is right and sensible.
In the first eight months of this year, savings—including benefit savings, maintenance arising from people who were coming off benefit and maintenance being paid and replacing benefit—amounted to about £280 million, as against £180 million in the same eight months of the previous year.
Mr. David Faber: May I thank my right hon. Friend for responding positively to the Select Committee's report? Does he agree that a great deal of the problems that the CSA has faced have come about as a result of the percentage of income that non-custodial parents have been asked to pay? Those figures are hard to prove and have often been exaggerated. Will not the very welcome 30 per cent. cap that my right hon. Friend announced today put an end to that confusion once and for all?
Mr. Lilley: I believe that my hon. Friend is right. The 30 per cent. cap—it is a 33 per cent. cap when the combination of an assessment and any arrears that people may have to pay off is taken into account—will be beneficial in ensuring that there is no hardship. It will be beneficial also as it will gain acceptance for the agency, as it will be seen clearly that people have at least two thirds, and normally more than 70 per cent., of their net income with which to meet other expenses not taken into account in the formula. Therefore, there will be no reason for absent parents to refuse to pay maintenance for the support of their children.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that probably only one other piece of legislation in recent years has had to be amended so often, for which Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box to apologise—the poll tax? We know that, after all the efforts to amend the poll tax, the Government finally had to withdraw it. Has he considered doing the same with the Child Support Act?
Mr. Lilley: No, certainly not. I believe that the principle—it was endorsed by the whole House, and
28
explicitly so by the Opposition when the Bill went through Parliament and became an Act—still has the support of the House and the country: that both parents are responsible for their children; that both should contribute according to their means; and that the taxpayer should pay only when the parents do not have the means to support the children. The hon. Gentleman gave his support and acquiescence to the Bill when it was going through the House, although he is normally willing to object to most things. He may now be withdrawing his support retrospectively, but he certainly did not vote against its Third Reading.
Mr. Roger Gale: I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to take a twin-track approach, to regulate as swiftly as possible where possible and to legislate where necessary. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— for the unfailing courtesy with which he listened to submissions and complaints. The fact that my right hon. Friend is now willing to allow travel costs to be taken into account will be particularly welcomed by my constituents in east Kent. I express my continuing concern, however, at the level of arrears that some of my constituents must still pay and ask my right hon. Friend to look again, even at this late stage, at whether there is any way in which those arrears can be mitigated.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for our attempt to make rapid changes where we can through the regulatory route and more substantive changes through primary legislation. I agree entirely with his plaudits for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and his promotion of him, which was well deserved.
My hon. Friend made a specific point about arrears. It will be widely welcomed that the agency recognises that, where it has contributed to the build-up of arrears, there should not be an attempt to go back more than six months. Therefore, that means writing off some of the money that should have been due to the parent with care. Once the system is established, compensation will be provided by the taxpayer. It will not be right to go beyond that, as my hon. Friend suggested. It will be widely welcomed that we are making the change.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: With regard to the impact of the changes in child support on children, who are sometimes forgotten in the debate, will the Secretary of State confirm that the vast majority of children in one-parent families will continue to see the extra child support deducted pound for pound, penny for penny, from income support and that for the very poor children in Britain, it remains a Child Support Act in name only?
Mr. Lilley: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his consistent recognition that two parents are involved in the production of children. Whereas many hon. Members have talked as if it was solely a matter of concern for the absent parent, the hon. Gentleman has always recognised the interests of the parent with care. Income support is payable to help parents who do not have maintenance or other means to support their own children. It is not meant to be in addition to maintenance and it would be wrong to do so.
What we have done in introducing a maintenance credit squares the circle, in giving parents a greater interest in the system. They already have an interest inasmuch as

29
maintenance is a portable benefit that they can carry back into work and that will help them back into work. But now, in addition, the maintenance credit would build up while they remained on benefit and were in receipt of maintenance, and that will be welcomed, I hope, by those who, like the hon. Gentleman, recognise that parents with care have often had the raw deal in the whole arrangement.
Mr. Jim Lester: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening so carefully to all the representations that were made, and join my colleagues in commenting on the help given by the Under-Secretary of State.
May I be clear on the way in which this will work? My right hon. Friend said that the changes are not retrospective. Does that mean that all the consistent, continuous cases, which are already with the CSA, will be reassessed from April onwards under the new formula and that that is why nobody needs to take up a case, because the CSA will write to all its current clients and make that clear?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to clarify that point. Although not retrospective, the changes will apply to those who already have maintenance assessments from the date that the new changes come in: April for the new changes introduced by regulatory means in the formula; and 1996–97 for the changes made through the exercise of discretion. Thus everybody, including those who have been paying and those in the process of being assessed, will get help.
Ms Mildred Gordon: The Secretary of State has made a considerable climbdown in the face of mounting public anger about the Child Support Act. Obviously, many of his measures will help non-resident parents, and those are to be welcomed. But as the changes are non-retrospective, the way in which people are treated will be patchy. What about non-resident parents who got into debt to pay the huge arrears assessed? Will that money be paid back to them with interest, or is it just tough for them? Although it will be better for some non-resident parents in the future, it seems to me—
Madam Speaker: Order. We have had a reasonably brisk exchange, although not as brisk as I should have liked. The Secretary of State wishes to answer a number of questions from Back Benchers, so will Back Benchers put their questions directly to him? I am sure that he will do his best to answer them equally briefly.
Ms Gordon: Will treatment be uneven? Will the Secretary of State also say a little more about the discretionary regulations, because they appear to be nowhere near an appeals system? As all cases are individual and as the voluntary agencies have listed about 40 differences that needed to be made, if it is not a proper appeals system, it will not help many people. I have said before—
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Lady now to put her final question to the Minister. Let us be a little tolerant with each other. Many other hon. Members want to put questions, so I am sure that the hon. Lady will now come to her final point.
Ms Gordon: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Finally, parents with care will get help only if they go to work, possibly in low-paid jobs, and if they can find work. What about parents with care who rightly want to
30
stay at home with their children? Do not they perform a service to the state, and should not they have a disregard that would help their children?
One further—[interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have let the hon. Lady have a fair crack at the whip this afternoon.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady appeared to want me to make the changes retrospective. That would be paradoxical when some of the resentment aroused by the changes was caused because they were thought to have retrospective implications. We would not want to pile Pelion upon Ossa. On the hon. Lady's point about arrears, there will be a limit on the combined amount of assessment and arrears that people can pay together. That will be welcomed and partly meets the point that she made.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's continued pursuit of feckless fathers. Will he continue to pursue fecklessness within the CSA and contract out to the private sector wherever possible?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the agency will continue with increasing success to trace and track down fathers who have attempted to get out of their obligation to contribute. The agency has so far succeeded in tracking down 58,000 absent fathers, who previously would have remained unknown and undetected, because of the arrangements that we have in force to trace them through national insurance numbers and other means. On improving efficiency through use of the private sector, I gave my hon. Friend an opportunity to put the points that he makes so eloquently to the agency and I know that they will have been listened to with care.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Given that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has expressed his extreme disappointment at the fact that the CSA should repeat the systemic failures of the disability living allowance, can the Secretary of State tell us exactly what he will do to assist the CSA staff to improve the service that they give to their clients and the taxpayer, so that we might see less of the chaos that has marked the past two years' operation of the agency?
Mr. Lilley: I share the hon. Lady's desire to see continuing improvement in the administration and efficiency of the agency, which goes hand in hand with any changes that we have made to the assessment system to make it fairer.
On the ombudsman's remark about the disability living allowance, the report on the DLA was not produced until the Child Support Act 1991 had already been passed. The introduction of the CSA and the DLA was largely simultaneous, but take-on by the CSA was phased in, unlike that of the DLA—that failure was perceived as a major problem. We have phased in the take-on of cases by the CSA, but we have already received criticisms and complaints about that. It should not be assumed that those two issues are identical and that a formula could be derived from one and applied to the other.

31
I welcome the fact that the ombudsman accepted that action had been taken to deal with the complaints that he examined in his report.
Lady Olga Maitland: May I warmly welcome the explicit reference to those who have remarried and taken on extra stepchildren? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that will alleviate the great concerns felt by those with new responsibilities?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. There was a sense of injustice as well as a cost implication where people had a new partner and stepchildren and, as a result, did not get full allowance for their housing costs. They will now do so and that will help the formula to achieve acceptability and ease the problems that some families face.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: While I obviously welcome the broad thrust of the paper that has been presented to the House, the Secretary of State will understand that many of its details will be explored further by individual hon. Members. On property settlements, how was the sum of £5,000 reached as the share that the parent without care would have to pass over from his equity? In the assessment of clean-break settlements, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that occupational pensions are often regarded as part of capital assets. Will they be excluded in this case?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady is right: the House will obviously want to examine in detail the proposals that I have put forward. I am sure that it is right that it should do so.
On property settlements, the £5,000 threshold was set because it seemed reasonable that there should be a minimum for a broad-brush approach. The greatest concern arose where people had passed over the whole of the house rather than just slightly more than 50 per cent. of the value of it or a fairly small sum of capital. We reached that threshold after discussion with family lawyers about the array of different costs and amounts involved.
Mr. Anthony Steen: As a founder member of the all-party child support group, may I say how much I welcome the statement, which is absolutely first rate? It shows that Conservatives not only listen to what the public say, but act on what they hear. As a member of the party committed to the family, will my right hon. Friend say something about the CSA's future arrangements governing the absent parent and the child, because CSA staff have done a great deal of damage to that relationship and some reparation work is needed?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wholehearted welcome. He is right. We have tried to listen to the experience and the worries that have arisen in the first 18 months or so of the operation of the agency—an agency, I would remind everyone, which was supported by the whole House when it was established, and which all of us have been keen to improve to deal with the problems that have emerged.
I am not sure that I would entirely accept the argument that my hon. Friend appeared to make about staff of the agency and the relationship between absent parent and
32
child. It must be remembered that it is always an emotional matter when the law intrudes in matters involving children, family breakdown and money. None the less, a decision must be taken about where responsibility lies. The House has decided that it should be taken through the Act and the agency, and the staff do try to fulfil their duties as sensitively as possible.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am pleased to hear that this discredited system is to be improved, but why has the Secretary of State refused to accept the legitimate argument that the employers of recalcitrant absentee parents should be compelled to co-operate with the agency, and why has he failed to tackle the companies—not all of them small—that pay the moneys arrested from wages to the agency so slowly? That is causing a great deal of distress to mothers in my constituency.
Mr. Lilley: It is easy for hon. Members to speak about discredited agencies. But when they did not vote against the agency in the first place and their parties wholeheartedly supported it, they share the overall responsibility for Parliament and our overall responsibility for responding sensitively, which we are now doing through the report of the Select Committee and today's statement.
Of course, employers have an obligation to help when the agency requires them to deduct from earnings at source. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that a large number of deduction from earnings orders have been made—4,000 in November alone, compared with 2,600 in the whole of last year—and they are proving a successful way of enforcing and ensuring payment.
Mr. James Couchman: I spent Friday night with a group of my constituents, all of whom pay maintenance and all of whose lives have been turned upside down by the agency. They will be as pleased as I am to hear of the improvements and changes that my right hon. Friend announced to the House today, especially with reference to housing costs, travel-to-work costs and the element of discretion to be granted to the new appeals tribunal.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend told me a little more about the housing costs. Does he mean that the agency will now recognise mortgages other than repayment mortgages—the ones that perhaps depend on endowment policies, personal equity plans and other methods of repaying capital?
On administration, we recognise that it will take some time for the discretion to be allowed to the appeal tribunal. In the meantime, my constituents continue to be told that, even when they are dissatisfied with the initial assessment, it might take as much as a year for it to be reviewed; that is unacceptable.
Mr. Lilley: I know that my hon. Friend has been in close contact with his constituents who have been worried about the working of the agency, so I am all the more grateful for his support.
I think that the agency does take into account more than the simple basic mortgage costs, and I should be happy to confirm details of specific types of mortgages about which my hon. Friend may have worries. The agency is devoting more resources to undertaking reviews and

33
completing them more speedily, so I hope that the length of time quoted to my hon. Friend will not apply to his constituents in future.
Mr. Mike Hall: The Secretary of State's statement follows two critical reports from the Select Committee and an even more critical report from the parliamentary ombudsman, but he nevertheless insists in the House that the principle that absent parents must pay and the principle—which he has not mentioned much this afternoon—that more money should be directed to maintenance of children, are the aims of his announcement. His refusal to budge on the disregard on income support demonstrates that he is led more by the Treasury than he is by putting more money into looking after children. Why will he not reconsider that point?
Mr. Lilley: For the 'very simple reason that I spelled out to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadclen (Mr. Dewar) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne)—that it would be a system that discouraged people, a system that made it more difficult for people to return to work and improve their standard of living, and a system that would be hugely costly to the taxpayer. We do not hand out public money like confetti without thinking where it will come from.
Mr. Iain Mills: Does my right hon. Friend recall the anguish expressed by a number of my constituents, especially one from Chelmsley Wood, whom he kindly met? Does he accept that the measures will help greatly? Will he, however, clarify how discretion would work for such a person who was seriously affected and who was well over the 70 per cent. level? Would CSA officials make judgments? Would my right hon. Friend make judgments? Who makes judgments?
Mr. Lilley: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not remembering the precise details of his constituent; I have seen a number of constituents during the relevant period. If, as he says, people are being assessed to pay more than 30 per cent. of their net income, they will benefit immediately from the cap on assessments when it comes into force in April. If, in addition, people have particular, exceptional expenses that are not taken account of in the formula and, because they are not taken account of, mean that they would suffer hardship, they will be able to apply to the agency once discretion is operational—once the Bill has received Royal Assent and the new procedures are in force. They will be able to apply to the agency and ask for such expenses to be taken into account. If the agency refuses or responds insufficiently, people will be able to appeal to the appeals tribunal and ask for the assessment to be reconsidered. In that way, proper consideration will be given to those with genuinely difficult circumstances.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be a great deal of dismay and anger at his statement that none of the changes announced today will apply to those whose settlements have already been concluded with the CSA, or at least not until two years—[Interruption.] That is what it says in the White Paper, as hon. Members will see if they care to read it. Is the Secretary of State aware— [Interruption.] Oh yes. It says at paragraph 5 on page 9:
"None of these changes will apply retrospectively."
34
That means, for people whose settlements have already been resolved. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman's failure to deal with income support disregards means that the CSA is best known, justly, as the "Chancellor's Support Agency".
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me another opportunity to clarify the point that I made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). Although the changes will not apply retrospectively, they will apply to all cases, whether or not they have received an assessment, from the moment that they become legally applicable. A change in the formula from April this year will apply to people who have already had a maintenance assessment in terms of their future maintenance liability. Any changes will not, of course, alter the amounts that they were required to pay last year or the year before. That would be retrospection, which is something that the House has always turned its face against.
Mr. Michael Lord: Although I warmly welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced today, I remind him that many of us thought that the principal reason for setting up the CSA was to chase fathers who contributed nothing to their children. May I remind him that many of us still believe that that should be our top priority? Will my right hon. Friend continue to carry out that task with renewed vigour?
Mr. Lilley: The agency's intention was always to chase those who were paying nothing and to ensure that everyone paid a reasonable amount. Some 77 per cent. of those taken on this year have paid not a penny of regular maintenance. As I said, we have been more successful than expected in tracking down those who had not merely paid nothing, but who had disappeared without trace. Even if there was some payment, in 96 per cent. of all cases taken on so far, the mother and children were dependent on benefit. It is only reasonable that the taxpayer should require parents to contribute first, according to their means, before the taxpayer has to contribute towards the maintenance of other people's children.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Like other hon. Members, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity presented by today's statement to help families on benefit who are worse off as a result of the operations of the Child Support Agency. For example, a pair of children's shoes can cost about £20 or £30 and were often purchased by the absent parent who is no longer able to make such a purchase. I do not advocate a return to ad hoc measures, but they should be reflected in some kind of disregard for the parent with care.
I also take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). Can the Secretary of State tell the House how he intends to ensure that the measures that he has announced today will not plunge the Child Support Agency into further administrative chaos? For example, does he intend to ensure that extra staff are taken on? Surely experience has

35
taught him that his penny-pinching attitude in the short term has resulted in a loss of money from the public purse in the long term.
Mr. Lilley: On the disregard, I have made the position abundantly clear as to cost and disincentive effects. With regard to the administrative burden that the changes may impose on the agency, as I said in my statement and elaborated on at greater length in the White Paper, I am introducing a number of regulatory changes that will enable administrative simplification and greatly ease the working of the agency to the benefit of those to whom it endeavours to provide a service. I think that the hon. Lady should welcome those changes.
Madam Speaker: We will now move on.

Private Clegg
4.31 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Madam Speaker, I am grateful for your indulgence and that of the House in this matter.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the case of Private Clegg."
The case has been much reported in the newspapers and in the electronic media. As it does not involve my constituency, I have spoken to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who is in his place, and he has made it clear that he wishes to be associated with many of my remarks.
In urging you to grant such a debate, Madam Speaker, I think that we need to consider three main factors. The first concerns Private Clegg himself, who has now been incarcerated for three and a half years awaiting the outcome of judicial manoeuvres. I am reminded by reading the Law Lords' summary judgment on the case that even they think that Private Clegg is in a somewhat different category from other murderers. They said:
"There is one obvious and striking difference between Private Clegg and other persons found guilty of murder. The great majority of persons found guilty of murder, whether they are terrorists or domestic murderers, kill from a wicked and evil motive. But when Private Clegg set out on patrol on the night of 30 September 1990 he did so to assist in the maintenance of law and order and we have no doubt that as he commenced the patrol he had no intention of unlawfully killing or wounding anyone".
The Law Lords make it clear that the case is different, but Private Clegg has been sentenced to life imprisonment, although he acted in good faith. The Law Lords also raised the matter of the yellow card. When Private Clegg set out, the yellow card instructions included the words:
"You may only open fire against a person…deliberately driving a vehicle at a person and there is no other way of stopping him".
That point was made clear in the judgment. Private Clegg had to take one other factor into consideration: a member of his own regiment had been knocked down and killed by a speeding car at a previous checkpoint.
The second and possibly the most important factor is the Law Lords' statement about the yellow card. They said:
"It is not suggested that the Yellow Card has any legal force".
We now have a situation in Northern Ireland where members of the armed forces go on patrol in some doubt as to their position and about how they will operate. This is a matter of great urgency, which must be dealt with because they may make decisions that will affect their lives and those of other people.
Thirdly, some people may say, "So what? This is one man, but big events are taking place and we must not upset one or other members of the community". Surely the House exists for one purpose, if for no other—to ensure that the rights of the individual will never be drowned by the greater issues that may be at stake.
Madam Speaker: I listened most carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, so I cannot submit the hon. Gentleman's application to the House.

Points of Order
4.35 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have the Government asked for time to make a statement on Welsh national heritage? The Secretary of State for Wales is discussing with the Countryside Council for Wales proposals to privatise more than 50 nature reserves and savagely to cut wildlife protection. Those crackpot proposals are bitterly resented in Wales. Surely the Secretary of State should come before the House, to consult right hon. and hon. Members before he proceeds.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As far as one can tell from the documents, the proposals will also breach Britain's international obligations under the biodiversity convention signed by the Prime Minister as part of the Rio treaty just after the previous general election and, worse, under the European Union's habitats and species directive, which passed through the House just before it rose for the summer recess last July. The document of which we have had sighs: appears to have passed through the Countryside Commission for Wales on the instructions of the Secretary of State, so it would seem appropriate for him to make a statement on how Britain is to meet its international obligations.
Madam Speaker: Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the remarks of both hon. Gentlemen, but I have not received any intimation from the Government that they will seek to make a statement.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be most grateful if you could assist me with a matter on which the Clerks have been extremely helpful, but an element of doubt remains. A number of hon. Members would like to raise the issue mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on the Adjournment of the House, so that we may press the Government for a statement. The problem is that although debate on the individual case would be in order, we are advised that the legal position that creates doubt for the 19,000 soldiers still serving in Ulster could go beyond the rules of order, because hon. Members are not supposed to press for legal changes in an Adjournment debate. If an hon. Member were to raise in an Adjournment debate the specific, narrow issue of Private Clegg—which would be in order—would it be in order also to point out in general terms the gaps in the law that led to Private Clegg's problem and how they might be put right?
Madam Speaker: The matter can be raised in general terms, provided that the House does not enter into debate on the decision of the Law Lords. I would hear such an Adjournment debate on that basis.

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses Nos. 2, 5, 8, 15, 52, 64 and 91, Schedules Nos. 1, 4, 11 and 14, and any new Clause first appearing on the Order Paper not later than 19th January and designed to continue the statutory effect of any of the Ways and Means Resolutions of the House of 13th December)
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  Ordered,
  That the order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House of the Finance Bill are to be taken shall be New Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 2, Schedule 1, Clause 5, New Clause 3, Clause 8, New Clause 4, Clause 64, Schedule 14, Clause 91, Clause 15, Schedule 4, Clause 52 and Schedule 11.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  Finance Bill
    New Clause 1

      FUEL AND POWER FOR DOMESTIC OR CHARITY USE
      '.—(1) The Value Added Tax Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.

      (2) In section 2 (rate of VAT) in subsection (1) the words "and paragraph 7 of Schedule 13" shall be omitted, and the following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—

      "(1A) VAT charged on—

      (a) any supply for the time being falling within paragraph 1 of Schedule A1; or

      (b) any equivalent acquisition or importation,

      shall be charged at the rate of 8 per cent.

      (1B) The reference in subsection (IA) above to an equivalent acquisition or importation, in relation to any supply for the time being falling within paragraph 1 of Schedule AI, is a reference (as the case may be) to—

      (a) any acquisition from another member State of goods the supply of which would be such a supply; or

      (b) any importation from a place outside the member States of any such goods.

      (1C) The Treasury may by order vary Schedule Al by adding to or deleting from it any description of supply for the time being specified in it or by varying any other provision for the time being contained in it."

      (3) The following Schedule shall be inserted immediately before Schedule 1—

    SCHEDULE A1
      CHARGE AT REDUCED RATE

        The supplies
        1.—(l) The supplies falling within this paragraph are supplies for qualifying use of—

        (a) coal, coke or other solid substances held out for sale solely as fuel;

        (b) coal gas, water gas, producer gases or similar gases;

        (c) petroleum gases, or other gaseous hydrocarbons, whether in a gaseous or liquid state;

        (d) fuel oil, gas oil or kerosene; or

        (e) electricity, heat or air-conditioning.

        (2) In this paragraph "qualifying use" means—

        (a) domestic use; or

        (b) use by a charity otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business.

        39

        (3) Where there is a supply of goods partly for qualifying use and partly not—

        (a) if at least 60 per cent. of the goods are supplied for qualifying use, the whole supply shall be treated as a supply for qualifying use; and

        (b) in any other case, an apportionment shall be made to determine the extent to which the supply is a supply for qualifying use.

        Interpretation
        2. For the purposes of this Schedule the following supplies are always for domestic use—

        (a) a supply of not more than one tonne of coal or coke held out for sale as domestic fuel;

        (b) a supply of wood, peat or charcoal not intended for sale by the recipient;

        (c) a supply to a person at any premises of piped gas (that is, gas within paragraph 1(1)(b) above, or petroleum gas in a gaseous state, provided through pipes) where the gas (together with any other piped gas provided to him at the premises by the same supplier) was not provided at a rate exceeding 150 therms a month or, if the supplier charges for the gas by reference to the number of kilowatt hours supplied, 4397 kilowatt hours a month;

        (d) a supply of petroleum gas in a liquid state where the gas is supplied in cylinders the net weight of each of which is less than 50 kilogrammes and either the number of cylinders supplied is 20 or fewer or the gas is not intended for sale by the recipient;

        (e) a supply of petroleum gas in a liquid state, otherwise than in cylinders, to a person at any premises at which he is not able to store more than two tonnes of such gas;

        (f) a supply of not more than 2,300 litres of fuel oil, gas oil or kerosene;

        (g) a supply of electricity to a person at any premises where the electricity (together with any other electricity provided to him at the premises by the same supplier) was not provided at a rate exceeding 1000 kilowatt hours a month.

        3.

        —(1) For the purposes of this Schedule supplies not within paragraph 2 above are for domestic use if and only if the goods supplied are for use in—

        (a) a building, or part of a building, which consists of a dwelling or number of dwellings;

        (b) a building, or part of a building, used for a relevant residential purpose;

        (c) self-catering holiday accommodation;

        (d) a caravan; or

        (e) a houseboat.

        (2) For the purposes of this Schedule use for a relevant residential purpose means use as—

        (a) a home or other institution providing residential accommodation for children;

        (b) a home or other institution providing residential accommodation with personal care for persons in need of personal care by reason of old age, disablement, past or present dependence on alcohol or drugs or past or present mental disorder;

        (c) a hospice;

        (d) residential accommodation for students or school pupils;

        (e) residential accommodation for members of any of the armed forces;

        (f) a monastery, nunnery or similar establishment; or

        (g) an institution which is the sole or main residence of at least 90 per cent. of its residents,

        except use as a hospital, a prison or similar institution or an hotel or inn or similar establishment.

        (3) For the purposes of this Schedule self-catering holiday accommodation includes any accommodation advertised or held out as such.

        40

        (4) In this Schedule "houseboat" means a boat or other floating decked structure designed or adapted for use solely as a place of permanent habitation and not having means of, or capable of being readily adapted for, self-propulsion.

        4.

        —(1) Paragraph 1(1)(a) above shall be deemed to include combustible materials put up for sale for kindling fires but shall not include matches.

        (2) Paragraph 1(1)(b) and (c) above shall not include any road fuel gas (within the meaning of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979) on which a duty of excise has been charged or is chargeable.

        (3) Paragraph 1(1)(d) above shall not include hydrocarbon oil on which a duty of excise has been or is to be charged without relief from, or rebate of, such duty by virtue of the provisions of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.

        (4) In this Schedule "fuel oil" means heavy oil which contains in solution an amount of asphaltenes of not less than 0.5 per cent. or which contains less than 0.5 per cent. but not less than 0.1 per cent. of asphaltenes and has a closed flash point not exceeding 150°C.

        (5) In this Schedule "gas oil" means heavy oil of which not more than 50 per cent. by volume distils at a temperature not exceeding 240°C and of which more than 50 per cent. by volume distils at a temperature not exceeding 340°C.

        (6) In this Schedule "kerosene" means heavy oil of which more than 50 per cent. by volume distils at a temperature not exceeding 240°C.

        (7) In this Schedule "heavy oil" shall have the same meaning as in the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979."

        (4) In section 97 (orders etc.) in subsection (4) (orders requiring approval) the following paragraph shall be inserted immediately before paragraph (a)—
        "(aa) an order under section 2(1C);".
        (5) In Schedule 13 (transitional provisions and savings) paragraph 7 (fuel and power) shall be omitted.
        (6) This section shall apply in relation to any supply made on or after 1st April 1995 and any acquisition or importation taking place on or after that date.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment (a), in new subsection (IA)(b), leave out '8' and insert '5'.
        4.38 pm
        The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        New clause 1 provides for the rate of value added tax on domestic fuel and power to be held at 8 per cent.. It reflects the decision of the House on 6 December 1994 and the subsequent resolution passed by the House on 13 December. The new clause is necessary to stop the otherwise automatic move to the standard rate with effect from 1 April this year.
        Through amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, the new clause establishes the 8 per cent. rate and defines the scope of its application by means of a schedule to the 1994 Act. The scope of the 8 per cent. rate mirrors exactly what prevailed before. Thus the detail of the schedule is no more than a carry-forward to the existing definition of domestic fuel and power.
        A positive rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power makes sense both for revenue and for environmental reasons. All other European countries with VAT systems tax such fuel, usually at their standard rates. In our case it is accompanied by a generous compensation package.

        41
        When linked with falling energy prices, that package did and does protect vulnerable people against the introduction of VAT at 8 per cent. to this sector.
        Prices for gas and electricity are 1 per cent. lower than they were two years ago, even allowing for the introduction of 8 per cent. VAT in April last year, so the compensation package is an addition to household incomes. It is worth more than £400 million in 1994–95, rising to about £750 million in 1995–96. That is about half the yield of the tax in a full year. All pensioners, most disabled people and all persons on income-related support have been receiving extra help since April last year through permanent additions to the relevant benefits.
        With that in mind, I commend the new clause and the 8 per cent. VAT rate on fuel and power to the House.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: The new clause carries into effect the victory—although the Minister did not put it quite like that—of the great popular campaign against the increase in VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. It is worth remembering that the Bill as it stands would do nothing to change that rate from 1 April. The new clause is therefore necessary to give effect to the victory that we won in December.
        It would have been nice to hear the Paymaster General acknowledge that the people of this country got it right and the Government got it wrong. The House should pay tribute to all who campaigned against the increase—many of them pensioners groups—to bring about a remarkable parliamentary defeat for the Government. It was one of only three occasions since 1979 when the Government have been defeated on a vote with a three-line Whip.
        All too often, the work of petitioning, writing to hon. Members and other forms of lobbying, although exerting influence, does not get the hearing that it should in our imperfect democracy. It is good for us all when people power, democratically expressed, makes itself felt and makes such a tangible difference. That is why we shall be happy—we are well aware that there is many a slip `twixt cup and lip—to allow the new clause safe passage into the Bill, so that people can be assured that they will not have to face 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel from April and that it will be held to 8 per cent.
        There are still some important points to explore before the House can proceed. The fact that the vote was won last year, halfway through what the Government had intended to be a staged increase to 17.5 per cent., means that we now have three rates of VAT in the system, including the zero rate. The intermediate 8 per cent. rate that the Government have chosen for VAT on fuel arose, to some extent, by chance. Perhaps the Paymaster General will therefore tell us whether he envisages that the 8 per cent. rate will have a permanent place in the VAT system.
        First, will the Minister—as he should—give an absolute and clear assurance that the Government have once and for all abandoned their ambition to put up VAT on domestic fuel to the full standard rate of 17.5 per cent.? Secondly, does he foresee the possibility of other goods or services being taxed at 8 per cent., either by way of transfer from the 17.5 per cent. band or, for that matter, from the zero-rated or exempt bands? Since the number of bands that we can have is limited by European law, the Government ought as a matter of principle to tell us whether they see the 8 per cent. band as a fully fledged, permanent fixture or as a one-off for domestic fuel only.
        42
        4.45 pm
        I also draw the Minister's attention to the strong case made by many people and organisations, including the Association for the Conservation of Energy, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, (Mr. Simpson), who presented the Energy-Saving Materials (Rate of Value Added Tax) Bill, in favour of transferring to the 8 per cent. rate certain energy conservation goods, to bring them into line with the rate charged on fuel. Paradoxically, the former Chancellor—the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont)—set this case out clearly at the time of the 1993 Budget when he said:
        "For the first time, the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power will be the same as that charged on goods…which improve energy efficiency. This will bring to an end the current anomaly, which makes nonsense of any attempt to use the tax system to improve the environment."—[Official Report, 16 March 1993; Vol. 221, c. 183.]
        That was actually a ruse whereby the right hon. Gentleman tried to justify that which could not be justified—putting VAT up to 17.5 per cent.—but his point related to comparability between the rate of VAT on fuel and on energy-saving materials.
        In the House on Friday we heard many arguments about this from Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who urged reconsideration of the rate of VAT imposed on materials for energy-saving purposes. The Association for the Conservation of Energy has suggested a number of logical candidates for an 8 per cent. rate: draught proofing materials, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, hot water tank jackets, lower emission glazing, and domestic heating controls. The association envisages two results: increasing the market for energy saving goods, which would bring in revenue to the Treasury; and improving the environment by saving energy.
        I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know the Government's thinking on comparability as between the proposed rate of VAT on domestic fuel and the rate levied on materials that people buy to save energy. Will Sir Crispin Tickell and the Prime Minister's team be looking into this issue as part of the so-called green tax strategy described in The Observer yesterday?
        I understand that there are problems to do with European VAT laws, which do not include energy-saving materials in the category of goods on which reduced rates are chargeable. Does the Minister intend to explore this as an option to help meet our environmental commitments in Europe? When the Government launched VAT on fuel, they used the excuse of the environment as cynical cover for what was essentially a tax-raising measure. Do they now realise that that was a grave mistake? Do Treasury Ministers acknowledge that the Government were wrong to break their promises about VAT on fuel, made at the time of the general election, just as they were wrong to break their promises on other taxes and on national insurance?
        Will the Minister assure us today that the Government will not extend or increase VAT? He and his colleagues seem not to understand even now just how gravely their broken promises damaged not just themselves but democracy and public confidence in this House. At the election they said that they had no plans or intention to extend or raise the rate of VAT; yet they went on to do exactly that.

        43
        The Government owe it to the House of Commons and, more importantly, to the country, as they try to unscramble the awful mess in which they find themselves with regard to VAT on fuel, to tell us whether they now plan to extend or increase VAT. The only perpetual motion machine yet invented is the Tory propulsion of VAT: they are keeping the boundaries of VAT moving forward all the time, sometimes in huge leaps, as with VAT on home improvements and fuel, sometimes by smaller steps, as with VAT on orange juice, language schools and, most recently, certain sectors of transportation.
        The increase in VAT on fuel that the Government proposed would have been extremely damaging. Even at 8 per cent., the tax reflects a Government who have been addicted to VAT and to indirect taxation generally. Even allowing for inflation, the amount of VAT per week paid by a typical family has risen from £370 a year in 1979 to £1,140 at 1994 prices, and total indirect taxation, including VAT, has increased from £1,562 to £2,545. Those are the figures calculated by the Library.
        Even without the extra tranche of VAT on fuel, pensioners will still be hard pressed. The Paymaster General referred to the compensation package, but pensioners will still find it difficult to keep themselves warm in the cold winter months. Single pensioners will now receive only 20p per week compensation instead of the 50p that they had been promised, bringing total compensation for them to an inadequate 70p a week, while pensioner couples will receive just £1.05. In cutting the compensation package, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to have ignored completely the representations made so strongly by people throughout the country. There are enormous variations between regions in heating costs and in types of housing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman could and should have been more generous in living up to his initial promise to pensioners.
        We must not forget that many people will receive no compensation at all. Those who receive maximum help with housing benefit receive nothing to help them pay increased heat and power bills. The unemployed, the disabled and the most vulnerable groups in our society receive no compensation to lessen the burden of the essential cost of keeping warm. The Opposition believe that the Chancellor has failed fully to take into account the needs of such groups. In his negligence, he leaves the poorest 20 per cent. of households £44 a year worse off as a result of the imposition of VAT on fuel.
        The sorry story of VAT on fuel has brought the Conservative addiction and its costs home to people—to their pockets and their purses—in no uncertain terms. I ask the Paymaster General to give the Committee a firm assurance that the Government will extend VAT no more. As the new clause becomes part of the Bill, that is the assurance that we want to hear, as do those outside the House of Commons—the people are sick of the Government and their VAT policies.
        The proposal behind the new clause is to carry into law a great people's victory in holding down VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. and the Opposition will do nothing to put that
        44
        victory at risk. The people campaigned, petitioned and fought for month after month to hold VAT at 8 per cent. and nothing that we do today should put that at risk.
        Mr. Alex Salmond: The impact of amendment (a) to the new clause would be to reduce the imposition of VAT from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.
        Like the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), I welcome the substantial victory that was achieved late last year by a combination of parliamentary interests against the Government. Perhaps the most significant feature of today's debate has been the perfunctory way in which the Paymaster General introduced the new clause. It is clear that the Government do not want to be reminded of the circumstances of their retreat at the end of last year or indeed to dwell on the subject of VAT on domestic fuel at all.
        My party has chosen a 5 per cent. amendment partly because, as the hon. Member for Oxford, East said, it is important to tease out from the Government what will be the lower rate across the range of VAT. Secondly, 5 per cent. is probably in accordance with European Union regulations as the rate to which the Government can move without seeking a specific derogation from our partners in the Community. Once having abandoned a zero rate, it is difficult to move back to one under current regulations, although I should obviously have preferred to be arguing for a zero rate.
        It was irresponsible of the Government to take domestic fuel, an essential for all people throughout the country, and apply VAT to it, contrary to electoral promises. They did so against a background of substantial fuel poverty and the fact that every year thousands of people suffer from hypothermia and tens of thousands die from cold-related illnesses in the broader sense. Throughout the country, millions of our fellow citizens suffer from endemic fuel poverty.
        There is a specific argument that Scottish Members have advanced in the Chamber on many occasions. We say that VAT on fuel is especially unfair because it results in unequal burdens throughout the country. That is applied common sense because of temperature variations in different parts of the country. In a memorable exchange about 18 months ago, a junior Minister at the Department of Social Security tried to convince the House that it was colder in England than in Scotland. I do not know what mountain-top temperature he was comparing with temperatures in various areas in Scotland, but that was the burden of his argument.
        More recently, however, the Scottish National party was delighted to have the Government caught telling the truth. On 24 November last year, in a written answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), the Department of the Environment finally owned up to the reality of temperature variations and the impact of that on fuel costs throughout the country. The Minister said:
        "The percentage of extra fuel required to heat a typical semi-detached house with gas central heating is as follows for each of the specified locations."
        Bristol is taken as the base.
        "(a) Edinburgh +28 per cent., (b) Glasgow +23 per cent., (c) Aberdeen +41 per cent., (d) Dundee +32 per cent., (e) Lerwick +53 per cent and (f)Braemar +66 per cent."— [Official Report, 24 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 249.]

        45
        According to the Department of the Environment, those were calculated using the Building Research Establishment's domestic model—the acronym being BREDEM; that is the name given to the computerised model in the Department.
        That Government answer raises what can be called the 66 per cent. question or, in Scottish politics, the Kincardine and Deeside question. The Member whose constituents suffer most from the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), has been an extraordinary Government loyalist in the various debates that have taken place in the Chamber over the past two years or so. However, I thought from that answer that the Government had at last owned up to what the rest of us knew from our common sense—the fact that there are temperature variations throughout the country, particularly as one moves from south to north or north to south.
        Unfortunately, however, the Government were not prepared to let the truth rest and I received a rather panicky letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland on 30 December, the day before Hogmanay, seeking to rubbish the answer supplied by the Department of the Environment. The letter reads:
        "In compiling the answer to Margaret Ewing on 24 November, the Department of the Environment used data from a computer model which is set up to calculate the hypothetical costs of heating a standard semi-detached house. It is quite wrong and misleading to draw general conclusions from this."
        And it is quite remarkable for a Cabinet Minister to try to rubbish a written answer from another Department. Are we to believe the answer from the Department of the Environment or the panicky explanation from the Secretary of State for Scotland? Or should we rely on the evidence of our own experience? Common sense tells us that it costs substantially more to heat a home in various parts of Scotland than one in the south of England.
        The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to independent studies. I have brought along one from the Sunday Mail. This excellent report was published on 7 November last year and compared heating costs in pensioners' homes in three locations, not hypothetical computerised models from the Department of the Environment. The locations were Bournemouth, Buckie and Lerwick. The heating costs of the pensioner couple in Bournemouth—Albert and Jean Clark—were £427. In Bournemouth, the average maximum temperature was 14.2 deg C, the average winter temperature was 1.7 deg C and there were seven hours 58 minutes of daylight in mid-winter. In Buckie, the heating costs of another pensioner couple, George and Mary Clark—all the couples were called Clark—were £602 and the weather facts were an average temperature of 11.1 deg C, an average winter temperature of 0 deg, and only six hours and 41 minutes of daylight in mid-winter. In Lerwick, the average bill of the pensioner couple was £630, with an average winter temperature as low as minus 1 deg and a mere five hours and 49 minutes of daylight in mid-winter.
        5 pm
        It is incredible that Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Scotland and the junior Minister responsible for social security, are denying an obvious fact to the House. Of course it costs substantially more to heat homes in parts of Scotland than it does to heat those in the south of England. Once one admits that fact, the inequity of imposing a flat rate of VAT on fuel throughout the United
        46
        Kingdom—and, more importantly, a compensation package with no geographical variations—becomes apparent.
        Yet again, the Government must tell us why they proposed such an anti-Scottish tax when there is strong evidence of crippling fuel poverty in many parts of the country. Scotland is in an unusual situation in that there is fuel poverty amid energy plenty. Scotland has about 80 per cent. of the European Union's hydrocarbon resources, but we have endemic fuel poverty unmatched in any other European country. The country with the most energy resources has the greatest problem with fuel poverty.
        Scottish local authorities have done their best to compensate for the imposition of VAT on fuel and for existing fuel poverty. Tayside regional council is controlled by the Scottish National party and Grampian regional council by an SNP-Liberal Democrat administration. In recent months, they have set up substantial efficiency and anti-fuel-poverty schemes. The scheme in Tayside costs about £500,000 and involves a variety of initiatives, such as payment holidays, meals on wheels, lunch clubs, £100,000 to the organisations dealing with fuel poverty at the sharp end, help to pensioners, free phones, energy advice booklets and active support in the front line for those agencies dealing with fuel poverty. However, even the excellent efforts of those two regional councils cannot compensate for the millions of pounds that have been taken from their communities due to the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.
        Value added tax should not have been imposed on domestic fuel, but since it has been imposed, the better figure would be 5 per cent. rather than 8 per cent. The lower the figure, the better it will be for pensioners and others suffering from fuel poverty. I urge the House to follow last year's victory and move the goal posts further—this time, from 8 to 5 per cent. We owe it to our constituents to do that.
        The Government have made much of their compensation package, but, as the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford, East, pointed out, many of the people who suffer substantial fuel poverty are not covered by that package. As Members of Parliament for Scotland, our constituents would wish us to act directly on the frightening paradox of fuel poverty amid energy plenty. In the absence of the ability to return to a zero rate of VAT on domestic fuel in the short term, we should vote today to reduce the rate to the lowest practicable level—5 per cent.
        In a private conversation, one Scottish Conservative Member, whom I shall not name, told me after the Government defeat in the vote last year, "By your actions, and by stopping a 17.5 per cent. rate for VAT on fuel, you have saved us politically," even though that hon. Member had loyally supported the Government in trying to sustain that rate. Let the Government realise today that no level of VAT on domestic fuel is acceptable in any part of the country and it is certainly not acceptable in the energy-rich nation of Scotland.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We welcome the fact that the new clause has been tabled as a result of last year's vote, after which the Government were forced to accede. Nevertheless, their defeat is costing them £800 million in revenue for which they had budgeted.

        47
        The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) voiced some pertinent arguments about the iniquity of the variable impact of a tax on domestic fuel, and the Government have certainly shown a lack of sensitivity to the matter. Those of us who represent north-east Scotland do not need to read the Sunday Mail to know that our fuel bills are higher than those in southern England. When the bill hits the doormat, we see how significant it is, and that the VAT element is substantially larger. People feel that VAT on domestic fuel is an unjustified and unfair burden, which disproportionately affects people on low incomes, who live in colder, darker areas where the winters are longer.
        For that reason, I welcome the fact that the Government supported the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) on Friday. We undoubtedly need some practical measures to deal with fuel poverty, especially in areas where the problems of high fuel bills and inefficient heating and insulation are most acute.
        From my travels to Scandinavia, I am aware that fuel poverty is rarely discussed in Norway for two fundamental reasons: first, because Norway has abundant hydro-electric power, which is almost free, and so fuel is not a major factor in household bills; and, secondly, because the Norwegians build their houses to take account of the climate. The British seem to have been extraordinarily slow to discover that we live in a cold, windy and wet island, and many of our building standards are not designed to deal with those conditions, which is regrettable.
        The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) wanted to know whether the new low rate was an anomaly that would be dealt with or a permanent fixture. If it is the latter, the arguments against extending VAT to domestic fuel apply equally to extending it to energy-saving building materials, insulation and so on. VAT on such goods could usefully be reduced to help people to combat the cost of 8 per cent. VAT on their fuel bills for the foreseeable future.
        The story of the strange behaviour of some Conservatives who represent north-east Scotland cannot be repeated too often. It is worth recording the political reality. The Conservatives lost their last remaining seat in north-east Scotland in the Kincardine and Deeside by-election. No doubt they were very pleased—we were very disappointed—that not only did they win back that seat in the general election, but they regained Aberdeen, South from Labour. I am absolutely sure, however, that if the election were held today, that result would be reversed.
        How have the people of north-east Scotland benefited from electing Conservatives? They were told that it would be handy to have people on the inside of government who could fight their cause. What did the Conservatives do to fight their cause? They voted to impose 17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel bills, they voted to change the oil tax regime to undermine the most important industry in north-east Scotland and they voted to keep our fishermen in port. That is how they have benefited from voting Conservative, and that is one of the reasons why they will not do so in a hurry again. They have learnt the error of their ways and its consequences.
        48
        Liberal Democrats certainly believe that there is a strong case for reducing VAT to 5 per cent., as proposed in amendment (a), but as part of a package that includes the introduction of a carbon energy tax partly to offset the cost of the reduction.
        That brings me to another point that I hope that the Paymaster General will address. The Government maintained, somewhat late in the day, that the real reason for their wishing to put VAT on fuel was not so mercenary and mundane as to secure revenue from the British people, but that it was part of a much higher objective to fulfil environmental commitments made at the Rio summit. How will the Government now achieve those objectives, and is there any substance to reports in yesterday's papers that they are about to adopt the idea of a carbon energy tax?
        If the Government are about to adopt the idea, I can assure Ministers that the principle will be welcomed by Liberal Democrats, since the Government's opposition to such a carbon energy tax has prevented the European Union from making progress in implementing the tax across the Union, which is clearly the right and proper way in which to implement it.
        The Government need to answer many questions. It is recognised that although VAT is not being increased to 17.5 per cent., many people will still struggle to pay VAT at 8 per cent. and that to avoid such hardship they require practical and financial assistance. I hope that the Government acknowledge that.
        I do not wish to support measures that may take us backwards, having forced the Government to change tack. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, East that it is good for our democracy for the Government to be defeated on an issue that is not a matter of confidence. I give some credit to the Chancellor, who, although he really had no option, at least had the grace to acknowledge immediately that he could no longer resist the view and the vote of the House. That, of course, is why we are here today considering this amendment.
        Liberal Democrats welcome the amendment. It is a triumph for the House of Commons and for those people throughout the country who campaigned to bring it about, but it still leaves many questions for the Government to answer and we shall certainly continue to press them for answers.
        Mr. Alistair Darling: This is the tail-end, in some ways, of a long debate that has taken place ever since the former Chancellor announced the imposition of VAT on fuel. As others have said, it is not surprising that the Paymaster General has had very little to say as he has simply conceded the position that the Government had forced on them because of the victory last year in managing to hold the increase of VAT to 8 per cent.
        The only point with which I shall deal briefly is that made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It is unfortunate that, as in other matters, the nationalists insist on seeing the subject as a fight between Scotland and England and that, somehow, the tax is being imposed on Scotland but not on England. To Labour Members, the battle is not, and never will be, between Scotland and England. In this example, the battle was between the Tories and the rest of the country, and on this occasion the rest of the country won and the Tories lost.

        49
        5.15 pm
        I find it deeply distasteful that yet again a nasty element is introduced that, somehow, the measure is being imposed on Scotland by another country. I find that repulsive as a patriotic Scotsman. I wish that the nationalists would not insist on introducing that unpleasant element into Scottish politics time and again. Coldness knows no political or geographical boundaries. Of course it is generally colder in Scotland than it is in England, but it is cold in England, as any pensioner who, even as we speak, is freezing because he cannot afford to heat his house can testify.
        This nationalist amendment is another cynical ploy from an increasingly opportunist and desperate party. The nationalists know that the amendment has no chance of succeeding because there has been no campaign behind it. Indeed, the nationalists' amendment puts at risk holding VAT on fuel at 8 per cent. because they are throwing a life-line to those in the Government who want to re-open the debate and increase VAT to the full 17.5 per cent.
        Surprisingly, the nationalists have made no attempt to mobilise public support for their policy since the amendment was tabled on Friday evening. No approach has been made to other political parties seeking their support; no letters have been written to Tory rebels. It was our campaign, which had a considerable amount of thought behind it, that led hundreds of thousands of people to protest against VAT over the past 18 months. It was our campaign, which we were happy to articulate in this Chamber, that finally led to the Government being defeated on this crucial issue.
        The nationalists' amendment has been tabled for them to be able to play party politics with people's VAT bills. It is a cynical ploy from a party that sees its support slipping in the Scottish polls. Labour Members will not put our VAT victory at risk by supporting an amendment of this nature.
        Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has not fully grasped House of Commons procedures. A Division can be called on the amendment only if the new clause is passed; he had better answer that point for a start. He seems to have written his speech before he heard my speech. I referred specifically to VAT on fuel and the problems that it caused across the United Kingdom. The impact of the amendment, if it were successful, would not only reduce VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. in Scotland, but in England as well. He had better explain to his constituents and his supporters north and south of the border why the Labour party is not prepared to vote for VAT on fuel at 5 per cent. in Scotland and England.
        Mr. Darling: There we have the main point of the amendment being tabled. It is nothing to do with any honest or serious attempt to reduce VAT. Our old nationalist chums are at it again, trying to score party political points against their opponents. They tabled the amendment in the knowledge that there was never any realistic chance of VAT being reduced to 5 per cent.
        May I remind the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan about procedure? This new clause is not yet in the Bill. We are not debating a clause in the Bill. We are debating a new clause, which has to be put in the Bill to stop VAT being imposed at the full rate of 17.5 per cent.
        We are seeing yet another cynical ploy from a desperate party. The nationalists will not fool anyone. Perhaps they will get one or two commentators to jump around to their
        50
        tune, but most sensible people will see this move for what it is—a cynical ploy that could never have helped anybody. In the important vote, people will remember who managed to keep VAT at 8 per cent. and stop the full increase to 17.5 per cent., which the Conservative Government tried to impose and would try to do again if they should ever be returned to office.
        Dr. Norman A. Godman: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) that, as the only Yorkshire-born Scots Member of Parliament in the House who has lived in Scotland for half a lifetime, I do not intend to engage in a battle of the roses between Yorkshire and Scotland or between England and Scotland. However, I have some sympathy for amendment (a).
        Shortly after the Government were defeated before Christmas on the VAT increase, Mr. Donald McDonald, secretary of Inverclyde Elderly Forum, told me of his delight and pleasure, which was shared by many pensioners throughout my constituency, at the Government's defeat on that iniquitous measure. Since then, I have spoken to many elderly people in my constituency. They have expressed deep concern that VAT on domestic fuel at 8 per cent. represents a harsh penalty on their ordinary everyday lives.
        All Scottish Members present, and some Conservative Members, will be aware that although my constituency is 200 miles south-west of the Banff and Buchan constituency, many of my constituents live in cold, damp houses that were built before the war several hundred feet above sea level. The weather station that assesses severe weather payments is located at sea level at Glasgow airport.
        Many of my constituents, not just the elderly, and the overwhelming majority of people who live on low incomes in Gibbshill, Strone Farm and elsewhere—places well known to my honourable and old Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham)—suffer very badly, as they try to live on social security and to heat their inadequate homes, many of which are in the public sector. I should like to see all those houses demolished and replaced by modern, waterproof, warm homes; my constituents deserve no less from the Government.
        In the meantime, I do not believe that my constituents should be paying such sums of money to heat their homes. I visited an elderly lady recently who lives in the east end of my constituency. It was a very cold day and she was sitting over a one-bar electric fire. I do not want anyone in this place to tell me that perhaps she should have saved some money during her long life in order to provide for more adequate heating.
        That old lady is the mother of a large family and she was widowed many years ago. In this day and age, it is utterly disgraceful, and it reflects badly on all of us, not just on that odd-job lot on the Government Benches, that a woman in her late seventies should have to live in those conditions, sitting in her overcoat in her sitting room—
        The Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. I understand the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman

        51
        is making his point, but this is the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and we are discussing specifically VAT on fuel and power.
        Dr. Godman: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris. I was simply supporting my argument with a case study that can be replicated many thousands of times in the west of Scotland, let alone in the north and north-east of Scotland. Ordinary people on low incomes should not have that imposition placed on them to add to the burdens that they already suffer.
        Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend will recall how many times, before VAT was imposed on fuel, I told the House about the incredibly high cost of heating homes in our constituencies. I described the massive difficulties facing some of our pensioners, some of whom were found dead behind their doors as a result of hypothermia. The imposition of VAT on fuel will undoubtedly make it extremely difficult for many folk to see out a really bad winter in Scotland. As a result of the recent flooding, people do not know what kind of heating bills to expect. Value added tax on fuel will exacerbate the problems of people on very low incomes.
        Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot comment on the dreadful consequences of that appalling disaster, which affected many of his constituents recently and which elicited such a hardnosed response from the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Ministers.
        The imposition of VAT on fuel creates a horrendous burden for many people on low incomes. There is a good deal of sympathy for some of the sentiments that were expressed by the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). Such a tax burden should not be placed on the shoulders of ordinary people. We should be giving them, especially those who are coming to the end of their lives, every possible assistance to live decent lives. That is why I have some sympathy for the amendment.
        Mr. Robert Hughes: The problem is that the pass was sold by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer when he first introduced VAT on domestic fuel and handed the poisoned chalice to his successor. He said that it would not be introduced for 12 months and that it would not apply fully for two years. He firmly believed that the anger about its imposition would have dissipated before the first tranche of the VAT increase was implemented. His political judgment was wrong, as was his feeling about how the imposition of VAT would be received.
        I have never known anger like the anger felt throughout every part of the community in my constituency, and around it, about the application of VAT to domestic fuel. Domestic fuel is a necessity: people have no choice of whether they use it. Regardless of whether VAT is levied at 17.5 per cent., 8 per cent. or 5 per cent., the argument about VAT on domestic fuel will not go away. We must all recognise that it will continue in the years ahead.
        I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will not think me too unkind if I say that he objected very strongly to the Scottish National
        52
        party making political capital. Perish the thought that we in the Labour party would ever try to make political capital.
        I would not take lessons from the SNP about how to make political capital. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central said, no attempt was made to canvass the proposition for 5 per cent. until it appeared on the amendment paper. The leader of the SNP constantly tells us in the press that, especially in Scotland, the opposition parties should get together before they table amendments. This is an example of preaching one thing and doing another. That is what I object to most about the way in which the SNP behaves.
        I am quite happy to take on the SNP in respect of making political capital. A most disgraceful episode occurred about a year ago when the SNP sought to make naked political capital and gain during the regional council elections. The Scottish nationalists proposed in their manifesto that, if elected, they would pay every pensioner in the Grampian area £10—in cash, not in benefits, in kind or in a fancy scheme.
        The Scottish nationalists were told at the time that that was illegal. I recall saying at a public meeting that it was quite illegal and I was berated by the nationalists for daring to doubt their credibility. The Scottish nationalists said that everything had been checked out and the legal implications had been assessed. However, the nationalists had not been in office with the Liberals in the Grampian region for five minutes when the £10 suddenly disappeared from the agenda. The nationalists suddenly discovered that the proposal was not legal.
        The Scottish nationalists then said that they would persuade the hydro-electric companies to make discount stamps available, but that proposition also fell by the way. The nationalists apparently now have a raft of measures that they hope will help people with their winter fuel bills.
        I would be happier if the nationalists were honest and straightforward and did not make false promises that they knew to be untrue and which they had no intention of implementing. They were simply concerned with making political capital, and that is making capital in the worst possible sense.
        Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman had the extraordinary knowledge that our proposals were illegal for regional councils but not for district councils such as West Lothian, where the SNP has implemented the £.10 payment, why on earth did Labour members of the regional council table it on the regional council agenda after the regional elections? Did they do so in the full knowledge that it was illegal? Why did Labour members on Grampian regional council vote with the Conservatives to stop the substantial fuel poverty action package that has been welcomed by every pensioner organisation in north-east Scotland?
        Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous in saying that that action was legal for the district council. The SNP knew that it was illegal for a regional council, but it went ahead and made that promise. He cannot have it both ways. The SNP was flushed out by having to vote against its own proposition, otherwise it would have tried to let it pass.

        53
        5.30 pm
        The issue is whether we should stick to VAT at 8 per cent. or 5 per cent. I prefer zero per cent. I hope that, in the months and years that remain—I hope that it is only months—before we have a change of Government, we are able to use the mechanisms of the European Union to review the matter. That is not beyond the bounds of possibility. We are not tied to being prevented from going back to the zero rate. That matter is negotiable and we should consider it.
        The argument will not go away. I will certainly continue to argue. VAT on domestic fuel is a most unfair impost on the British people. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned England, but the thrust of his remarks related to Scotland. He made a special appeal to Scottish Members to defend their people. My people live on both sides of the border, and they live in Wales and in Northern Ireland. They are the people whom we should seek to defend. It looks as though the nationalists have gone against their own arguments. In previous debates, they have said that they do not vote on any master that affects the people of England. That was a disgraceful attitude. I am glad that they are beginning to see the sense of their arguments, but the VAT argument will go on.
        Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I rise to speak mainly because I was surprised at what I can only call an hysterical outburst from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). His remarks were slightly tempered by those of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)., who showed genuine concern about the issue which my party is addressing in amendment (a). We are trying to ensure that there is a reduction in VAT on domestic fuel to the extent to which that is allowable under current regulations. Thal is the point of our amendment. Our amendment applies not to one part but to all parts of the United Kingdom.
        We are concerned about fuel poverty. Some hon. Members who have served in the House longer than the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will appreciate that I have campaigned in respect of fuel poverty for more than 20 years. It sits uneasily on the shoulders of Labour Members to forget that when I first raised the issue of a cold climate allowance and of ensuring that people were not frightened to put on their fires or to buy bags of coal, the Labour Government accused me of being hysterical and of frightening people. It has taken a long time for many people to be convinced of the arguments. Obviously, I welcome the fact that they have.
        On the issue of VAT on domestic fuel, I have shared many platforms with many people in the United Kingdom. I have always been committed to trying to win the argument, which is as much about morality as about economy. If hon. Members cannot adopt a moral approach to the people who are needy, who are living in poverty and who are frightened to heat their homes, we are not fulfilling our roles as democratic representatives. My Cold Climate Allowance Bills, which have not always won favour with hon. Members, have always applied on a United Kingdom-wide basis, just as our amendment does.
        Given the comments by some Labour Members, I assume that peace will break out and that they will consult us every time they table an amendment. This amendment is being debated on the day when we heard about British Gas investigating possible reductions in its services to the
        54
        elderly and to the handicapped. It is even considering not sending braille bills to blind people. That makes me feel sick when we know that money can always be found for chief executives to have substantial pay increases that almost equal national lottery pay-outs. We have that moral responsibility.
        Hon. Members must recognise that the amendment can be voted on and be attached to new clause 1. That is the mechanism. If new clause 1 is accepted, our amendment can be voted on. If the amendment is accepted, the Government would have to take it on board.
        Mr. Darling: No one doubts the sincerity with which the hon. Lady has waged her campaign on behalf of those who must pay VAT on fuel. Given the constraints in this Parliament that are needed to obtain a majority, what steps did the nationalists take between Friday evening and this afternoon to see whether they would have sufficient support to command a majority? The issue is not the difference between 8 and 5 per cent., it is ensuring that the full 17.5 per cent. that the Conservatives wanted does not go ahead.
        Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman knows the SNP's opposition to the 17.5 per cent. rate. The amendment, which was tabled in my name, was not canvassed because 250 redundancies were announced in my constituency on Friday, courtesy of the Ministry of Defence, and that matter had to be dealt with. The Labour party is extremely miffed that it did not work out the possibility of tabling such an amendment to the new clause. If that is what is worrying Labour Members, it is a shame, but there was nothing to prevent the Labour party, with all its resources, from doing exactly what my party did.
        Mr. Darling: I do not wish to labour the point, but of course we considered the possibility. Given that we had to obtain a majority which, of necessity, would include some Tory rebels, we were anxious to prevent VAT from being imposed at 17.5 per cent., and we believed that the one position that we could win was to keep VAT at the present year's level. Without exception, Labour Members have always opposed VAT on domestic fuel.
        Although I have great sympathy with the hon. Lady in respect of the redundancies that were announced in her constituency on Friday night, it has been my experience that the leader of the Scottish National party has never been reticent about using the press. The reason why we did not hear a cheep between Friday evening and today was simply that the hon. Lady was otherwise engaged, no matter how understandable the situation in which she found herself.
        Mrs. Ewing rose—
        The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It might be wise to return to the amendment.
        Mrs. Ewing: It must be recorded that the amendment was on the blues at the back of the Order Paper on Friday, if Labour Members had cared to check. I take it from the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that the official Opposition plan to call a Division on new clause 1, although I had understood that new clause 1 was not opposed. There is still an opportunity to vote on the recommendation that we have placed before the Committee. All that we are asking for is hon. Members'

        55
        support. Hon. Members must make up their own minds. They must take decisions and answer to their constituents. Many people will find it very interesting if the official Opposition do not support our amendment in the Lobby tonight just because they happen to be miffed that they missed an opportunity.
        Mr. Graham: I am confused because the amendment refers only to 5 per cent.—it should be 1 per cent. My opposition to VAT on fuel is well known, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as is my opposition to the fuel poverty which is affecting constituents all over Great Britain.
        Ministers' replies to the questions that I asked before they put VAT on fuel should have had some credibility. I asked: Did they know what the price of coal was? Did they know how much it cost for a bag of coal to be delivered to a house? Did they know how much a bottle of Calor gas cost? Did they know what a gallon of paraffin cost? I never received any answers. One would think that, with all the resources which Ministers have, they could have found that out. The Minister may wish to intervene now to tell me.
        We are again speaking about fuel poverty, and the Opposition are trying to protect pensioners, the disabled and the low paid. We are constantly arguing about the issue because elderly people and others cannot heat their houses and live in comfort. The Government deny them that. The amendment aims to reduce the costs of heating the homes of the elderly and of the disabled.
        The Government should tell us how much it costs to heat a home, and then they should look at by how much they are increasing that cost. There is confusion among some Members, but I am keeping strictly to the amendment. I should like to see the abolition of VAT on fuel, and the Government should go further and make some other dramatic reductions to the cost of heating homes. We do not want the Government's penny-pinching schemes to help people who are suffering fuel poverty. We need something that is more committed and would allow folk to live in comfort.
        The House often gets caught up in minutiae which, at the end of the day, does not help anybody. I should like the Government to take some cognisance of fuel poverty. People are living in real hardship in cold and damp houses. Many of my constituents live in damp homes, and the local council does not have enough money to heat those houses. Hon. Members may ask what is the relevance of that. Clearly, if people are paying for heating, they will also be paying the additional VAT on fuel. If VAT on fuel were reduced, that would help people to live in comfort.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) rightly let the Committee know that we have too many homes in Scotland which are damp and need heating. Too many homes have condensation and have been badly built. Do the Government come up with enough money to remedy those problems? No. They come up with an increase in VAT on domestic fuel, which brings us back to square one. Ordinary men and women who are low paid or pensioners cannot heat their homes because of this Government's actions.
        Dr. John Marek: During the past hour of the debate, I have become bemused about which way hon.
        56
        Members in different parts of the Committee will be voting on this issue. I look at it as a simple issue. The Opposition are against VAT on domestic heating. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I would support a rate of zero per cent. Unfortunately, VAT on domestic fuel has been imposed for a year, and we cannot remove it without co-operation from other member states of the European Union. I suspect that such co-operation would be unlikely, given the Government's relations with the other member states.
        It is surely better to have a rate of 5 per cent., which is at the bottom of the reduced rate of VAT, than one of 8 per cent. An argument has been advanced that we should leave well alone, and that we should not move the rate to 5 per cent. Another argument is that new clause 1 might not go through, but I do not believe that. The Chancellor said that he would introduce clauses as a result of a decision of the House before Christmas regarding VAT, when the Government were roundly defeated on increasing VAT on domestic fuel to 17.5 per cent. The Chancellor then said that he would take note of that decision.
        5.45
        The Chancellor had his revenge in his mini-Budget just before Christmas, although he need not have done so, by putting up the duties on lots of other commodities. He said that he would have regard to what the House decided, and that he would propose a new clause in time for it to be discussed in Committee. This he has done. The Treasury produced draft clauses, and we have the clauses before us.
        There would be no honour on the Government side—there is some—if they incited their own Back Benchers to vote against new clause 1. I do not think that they will do that. I am prepared to accept the word of the Government that they will do their best to ensure that new clause 1 is read a second time and becomes part of the Bill.
        If that is the case, what is left? After the new clause is dealt with, we can—as an attempt to find the opinion in the Committee—ask whether we want the reduced rate of VAT to be 8 or 5 per cent. I am simple-minded on the matter. I do not believe that we should have VAT on fuel, but, if we have to have it, I would rather it was at 5 per cent. than at 8 per cent.
        It is clear that, for many people, the cost of energy is great. Members have talked about fuel poverty. It exists not just in Scotland but in England and, as a Welsh Member, I can tell the Committee that fuel poverty is present in Wales as well. Consumers of electricity have to pay high standing charges, and that again is a measure that bears hardest on those who can least afford to pay.
        Meanwhile, the regional electricity companies have so much money that it is flowing out of their ears. There is no justice. Despite the adverse effects upon the poorer people in society, we are debating whether we should leave VAT at 8 per cent or reduce it to 5 per cent. I certainly have sympathy for the amendment, and I do not care whether it has been tabled by the SNP or by the Labour party. We should look at what the amendment says and ask whether, in our judgment, it is good for the country and for the people whom we represent.
        I have no doubt that my electors would, to a man and woman, say that if I have a chance to vote for VAT on domestic fuel to be at 5 per cent. rather than at 8 per cent., that is what I ought to do. I intend to do that.

        57
        There is a problem within the Labour party. While the Scottish National party will never form a Government, the Labour party will form the next Government. I do not know what my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will suggest, but they might be worried that the Government will say that the Labour party is forgoing a certain amount of revenue. The Government may then ask where the Labour party is going to get that revenue.
        I do not how much revenue a 3 per cent. reduction in VAT would amount to—it might total £0.5 billion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget—I am speaking from memory—said that he was expecting a public sector borrowing requirement of about £30 billion in 1995–1996. As a result of changes in the economy, he is now expecting a PSBR of £21.5 billion. Those matters are dealt with by guess and by God, and estimates of the PSBR can vary by huge amounts. If the Labour party—through its support of the amendment—were able to bring the rate of VAT down from 8 to 5 per cent., what would happen to the PSBR? It would go up from £21.5 billion to perhaps £22 billion. I do not think that that is serious. I cannot say that about many things, but on its own it is not a serious problem. On the other hand, what other tax could be put up instead?
        I recommend that the Government accept the amendment and resolve, as a quid pro quo, not to abolish tax on share transactions. That would more than compensate for any loss of revenue resulting from acceptance of the amendment. The tax that the Government will forgo voluntarily when they abolish duty on share transactions is about £1 billion. That is more than they would forgo if they accepted the amendment. I will not vote for the amendment irresponsibly and say, "Well, as it is something that my constituents would want, I'm not going to worry what happens to the economy as a result." I shall vote for the amendment and urge the Government, if it is passed, to recoup the money by retaining duty on share transactions. In itself, that abolition of duty would lead to more short-terrnism and difficulties for the economy.
        I hope that that is a reasonably logical argument. We should not try to squabble about who thought of something first. It does not matter. People do not care tuppence about who tabled the amendment. They care only about the effect that it will have. I am sure that, if it were passed, 99 people out of 100 not only in my constituency but throughout the land—would give three cheers.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) asked about the status of the 8 per cent. VAT rate on domestic fuel and power. In my introductory remarks, I said quite clearly that we accepted the decision of the House in December of last year and have no intention of increasing the rate further. In fact, the new clause fixes the 8 per cent. rate in statute and removes its transitional status. Let us contrast what I just said with the evasive attitude of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who, in the debate on the Budget, despite being asked several times by one of my hon. Friends, refused to give any assurances about the intentions of a future Labour Government on the rate and scope of VAT.
        We do not intend to bring in any more reduced rates of VAT. To do so would undermine the comparative administrative simplicity of the VAT system in this
        58
        country. It would create new boundary lines between rates and types of products and services, which would provide endless scope for disputes and difficult decisions.
        Mr. Andrew Smith: Can we be clear about precisely what the Paymaster General said? When he said that the Government have no intention of bringing in any more reduced rates, is that what he means—no rates other than 8 per cent? Or is he saying that no other goods and services will be brought to the 8 per cent. rate? Which is it?
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am saying that the VAT rate on domestic fuel and power will be a unique reduced rate in this country and we will not be adding any more products or services to the reduced rate band.
        In answer to a question about energy saving materials, I can confirm—it was apparently not understood by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who introduced his Bill last Friday—that such products are not on the annexe to the sixth VAT directive and therefore we could not introduce a reduced rate for such products, even if we wished to. The Commission said that it has no intention of proposing any additions to the reduced rate to cover energy-efficient materials, and therefore I must say that that, too, falls at the first fence.
        The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described the regional variations in the weather pattern in the United Kingdom and pointed out—as if we did not know—that it is generally colder in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not quite that simple, because parts of Scotland, such as the west coast, are not as cold as certain parts of England. Therefore, any attempt to introduce regional variations in the taxation of fuel, or in the compensation package, would rapidly turn into an administrative nightmare. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that various other costs in Scotland are somewhat lower than in England, certainly in the south of England. If we were to compensate for those costs as well, in the opposite direction, the whole system of taxation and the benefit system would rapidly become bureaucratically unworkable.
        Certain payments go to Scotland more frequently than to England. Cold weather payments, which the Government introduced, go differentially to those living in Scotland. Last year, for example, Scotland received 40 per cent. of the cold weather payments that were paid, and they are due to rise. They were increased from 1 November last year from £6 to £7 per week and will increase further to £8.50 per week from 1 November this year.
        Mr. Salmond: I am well aware of the inadequacy of the emergency payments scheme. The Minister talks about an administrative nightmare for the Government. Will he just contemplate the fuel nightmare, which the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel has made worse for so many of his fellow citizens? Has he actually read the Cold Climate Allowance Bill, which has been introduced several times by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), which suggested that regional variations in compensation be built-in to the social security system to bring about some alleviation of fuel poverty? Does he understand that all those questions were dealt with in that

        59
        Bill and that all that is required from the Government is some political will not to put people into a situation of desperate fuel poverty?
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I well understood the points that were made by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, both in this and previous debates, but I am firmly of the view that any attempt to go down that road for one specific item of domestic expenditure would become administratively unworkable.
        On VAT and the climate, it is worth pointing out in passing that not only do all other EC countries have a positive rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power, but in countries that are colder than the United Kingdom the VAT rate in higher. For instance, in Sweden and Denmark, the rate of VAT on fuel and power is 25 per cent. and therefore it is not the only matter to be considered under this general heading.
        Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister understand that, in those Nordic countries, the housing standards and the standards of insulation are much higher and that they have much lower winter death rates than we do in the United Kingdom, particularly when we compare them with northern parts of Scotland? I realise that VAT is one aspect of the argument, but at the moment we do not have a sufficient scheme to bring our housing stock up to the necessary quality. Until that is achieved, we must do everything possible in our power to avoid fuel poverty.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is why I said that there were a number of other factors in play. I am sure that the hon. Lady would give us credit not only for introducing but for generously funding the home energy efficiency scheme, which will receive £100 million a year over the next three years and which is far and away the most comprehensive scheme for improving the insulation and draught-proofing of domestic dwellings.
        I return to the main substance of the amendment, which is the determination of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to force through an amendment to reduce the 8 per cent. rate of VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. That is unacceptable to the Government because of the revenue loss concerned. It would cost some £500 million a year, which would have to be made up by other taxes elsewhere or be funded by cuts in public expenditure. Under neither heading did the hon. Gentleman make any suggestions.
        The Committee was entertained by the exchanges between the Labour party and the SNP on this matter. Although I resist the amendment and disagree with it for the reason given, I concede that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and his party are at least consistent on the matter. He opposed VAT on fuel and now wishes to reduce it to the minimum rate permitted under EC legislation. Both he and my hon. Friends were somewhat bemused and baffled by the wriggling explanation—or non-explanation--given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) in trying to describe why he will not support the amendment. If the Labour party is against this tax—its opposition to the Budget was founded on opposition to VAT on fuel—it is strange that it would rather have VAT at 8 per cent. than at 5 per cent.
        60
        6 pm
        There is a clear amendment, which I understand is in order, to amend the new clause and insert 5 per cent. rather than 8 per cent., so it intrigued us that, although the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats want zero per cent. VAT on fuel, they would nevertheless prefer 8 to 5 per cent. That Mickey Mouse arithmetic and contorted logic gives us a glimpse of what a future Labour Government would be like. It clearly did not impress the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who said with genuine and heartfelt sincerity that he opposed the whole concept of VAT on fuel and would vote accordingly. He will certainly join the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan in the Division Lobby.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister is correct to say that the Liberal Democrats will not support the amendment. The reason, however, is clear. We said that we favoured the 5 per cent. rate but must show how it would be funded. We proposed that it be funded by a carbon energy tax, which the Government resisted and prevented the European Union from adopting. Are the Government in favour of a carbon energy tax, which would help to finance the 5 per cent. rate? If so, not only could we support the amendment but so could the Government.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That reasoning is highly specious. I confirm that we are not in favour of a carbon energy tax, which is unnecessary and would damage the competitiveness of British industry. If we imposed such a tax on British business, it would simply encourage industry, particularly heavy industry, to migrate away from the United Kingdom and the European Union to parts of the world like north America and the Pacific basin, which have no intention of imposing a carbon tax. So we could see carbon emissions rising globally, rather than diminishing.
        Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his characteristic courtesy. He has confused me with another hon. Member because at no time did I use the phrase, "vote accordingly". I said that I had some sympathy for a 5 per cent. level of VAT on fuel. I would prefer a zero rate. Incidentally, for what it is worth, the pronunciation of my constituency is Greenock and Port Glasgow.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for getting the pronunciation of his constituency wrong, but I was crediting him with more logic than he has displayed. If he opposes VAT on fuel and power and wants a zero rate, it defies logic that he will not support an amendment that would reduce it to 5 per cent. and that he would rather have 8 per cent. That logic obviously impresses the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who clearly said that he will support the SNP amendment. The Labour party has a mini, or perhaps a major, rebellion on its hands. I see that the hon. Member for Wrexham is now being spoken to, no doubt in stern tones, by a colleague. I doubt whether that will be sufficient to get him out of the wrong Lobby, in eyes of the Labour party, or the right Lobby in the eyes of the SNP.
        So what started as a simple amendment by the SNP has driven a dagger right the way through the Labour party. Although I have no sympathy and will invite my hon.

        61
        Friends to reject the amendment, I must at least congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on his parliamentary tactics.
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It may assist the Committee if I advise on the order in which I intend to put the Questions. First, I shall ask whether the clause should be read a Second time; secondly, I shall put the SNP amendment; and, thirdly, I shall ask whether the clause should be added to the Bill.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time.
        Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in new subsection (1A)(b), leave out '8' and insert `5' .—[Mr. Salmond.]
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 283.

        Division No. 43]

        [6.06 pm

        AYES

        Barnes, Harry

        Marshall, jim (Leicester,S)

        Canavan, Dennis

        Skinner, Dennis

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Mahon, Alice

        Mr.Alex Salmond and

        Marek, Dr John

        Mrs.Margaret Ewing

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Chapman, Sydney

        Alexander, Richard

        Churchill, Mr

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Clappison, James

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Amess, David

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

        Ancram, Michael

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Arbuthnot, James

        Coe, Sebastian

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Colvin, Michael

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Congdon, David

        Ashby, David

        Conway, Derek

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Atkins, Robert

        Coombs, Simon (Swincdon)

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Baldry, Tony

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Couchman, James

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

        Bates, Michael

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Bellingham, Henry

        Day, Stephen

        Bendall, Vivian

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Dicks, Terry

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Dover, Den

        Booth, Hartley

        Duncan, Alan

        Boswell, Tim

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Dunn, Bob

        Bowis, John

        Durant Sir Anthony

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Dykes, Hugh

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Brazier, Julian

        Elletson, Harold

        Bright, Sir Graham

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Burns, Simon

        Evennett, David

        Burt, Alistair

        Faber, David

        Butler, Peter

        Fabricant Michael

        Butterfill, John

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Fishbum, Dudley

        Carrington, Matthew

        Forman, Nigel

        Cash, William

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        62

        Forth, Eric

        Lightbown, David

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Lord, Michael

        French, Douglas

        Luff, Peter

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Gardiner, Sir George

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        MacKay, Andrew

        Garnier, Edward

        Maclean, David

        Gillan, Cheryl

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Madel, Sir David

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Gorst Sir John

        Mans, Keith

        Grant,Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Marlow, Tony

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Hague, William

        Merchant Piers

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

        Mills, Iain

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

        Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hannam, Sir John

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Moss, Malcolm

        Harris, David

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Nelson, Anthony

        Hawkins, Nick

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Hawksley, Warren

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Hayes, Jerry

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Heald, Oliver

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Norris, Steve

        Hendry, Charles

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Hicks, Robert

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

        Ottaway, Richard

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Page, Richard

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Paice, James

        Horam, John

        Patnick, Sir Irvine

        Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Pawsey, James

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Pickles, Eric

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow West)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Rathbone, Tim

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Jack, Michael

        Richards, Rod

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Riddick, Graham

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Jessel.Toby

        Robathan, Andrew

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Key, Robert

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Sackville, Tom

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Knapman, Roger

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Knox, Sir David

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Shersby, Michael

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Skeet Sir Trevor

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Soames, Nicholas

        Legg, Barry

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Leigh, Edward

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Lidington, David

        Spink, Dr Robert

        63

        Spring, Richard

        Twinn,Dr Ian

        Squire, Robin (Hornchuch)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Viggers, Peter

        Steen, Anthony

        Walden, George

        Stephen, Michael

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Stern, Michael

        Waller, Gary

        Stewart, Allan

        Ward, John

        Streeter, Gary

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Surnberg, David

        Waterson, Nigel

        Sykes,John

        Watts, John

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Wells, Bowen

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Whitney, Ray

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Whittingdale, John

        Thomason, Roy

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Willetts, David

        Thurnham, Peter

        Wolfson, Mark

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

        Yeo,Tim

        Tracey, Richard

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Tredinnick, David

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Trend, Michael

        Mr. Timothy Wood and

        Trotter, Neville

        Mr. Liam Fox

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Clause added to the Bill.

      New clause 2

        SPIRITS, BEER AND CIDER: RATES
        '.—(1) In section 5 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 (spirits) for "£19.81" there shall be substituted "£20.60".

        (2) In section 36(1) of that Act (beer) for "£10.45" there shall be substituted "£10.82".

        (3) In section 62(1) of that Act (cider) for "£22.82" there shall be substituted "£23.78".

        (4) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st January 1995.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (1), leave out '"£20.60"' and insert '"£17.83"'.
        Clause 2 stand part.
        Government amendments Nos. 1 to 6.
        Amendment No. 26, in schedule 1, page 156, line 25, leave out '£19.81' and insert `£17.83'.
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Clause 2, together with schedule 1, replaces the present five-band duty structure for low-strength wine and man-made wine with a two-band structure. It is a sensible, simplifying measure. The broad effect is fiscally neutral, but British producers will generally benefit from the change, as they produce proportionately more product at the higher end of the range. I am sure that the Committee will welcome that modest reform.
        The schedule also envisaged a duty standstill on wine, as on beer and spirits. That is now to be amended; I shall say why and how in a moment. The duty on fortified and sparkling wines was also reduced. In the case of fortified wine, that takes into account the third stage of the agreement with Spain, to reduce the differential between fortified wine and table wine, and to allow the name "British sherry" to be used until 1996.
        64
        The reduction acts to correct an anomaly whereby sparkling wines are taxed more heavily than stronger fortified wines. More than half of all sparkling wine is not champagne, and there is also a successful British production of sparkling wine, which will modestly benefit from that change.
        In his statement on 8 December 1994, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said that he had hoped to spare the alcohol industries any duty increase. However, the loss of revenue, as a result of the VAT on fuel decision, meant that he, regretfully, had to revisit those excise duties.
        Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 give effect to an increase of about 4 per cent. in each wine category. Similarly, new clause 2 raises the duty on spirits, beer and cider by about 4 per cent. They were the subject of resolutions passed by the House on 13 December 1994.
        Those increases are not as we originally wished. However, even with those increases, the duty on spirits, beer and wine has decreased in real terms since 1985 by 16.1 per cent., 7.7 per cent. and 2.2 per cent. respectively.
        Ms Dawn Primarolo: We will vote against new clause 2, which seeks to increase duty on beer, wine and spirits. A 4 per cent. increase in alcohol duties is contained in that new clause, imposed on the industry following the Chancellor's acknowledgment in his Budget speech of the problem confronted by the beer and pub industry in relation to the increase in legitimate cross-border shopping and illegal smuggling.
        The Chancellor said:
        "one of the most widely publicised other effects of the single market has been the increase in legitimate cross-border shopping in alcohol and tobacco, and in smuggling.
        Both of these have inevitably meant some loss of duty to the Exchequer, pressures on the British drinks industry and some damage to British business. No Chancellor can remain unmoved in the face of this".—[Official Report, 29 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 1095–96.]
        We did not realise that he meant that no Chancellor could be moved for more than seven working days, faced with that problem. Despite the assurances that he gave the House in trying to persuade us that he understood the problems of the industry, he chose to increase alcohol duties about nine days later. Moreover, in the Budget itself, the Chancellor reduced duties on sparkling wine and champagne by 27p a bottle. Even with those changes, there is a reduction of 20p on champagne, making it cheaper than it was before the Budget in 1994.
        The Labour party believes that the Government should act urgently in several respects. In opposing the new clause, I shall describe how the Government could have reacted differently.
        I note with some interest, reading Licensee and Pub Food Monthly, that the Paymaster General's uncle, Derek Heathcoat-Amory, was Chancellor in 1959, and he understood then the need to control duty on beer to prevent damage to the British industry. He reduced the duty on beer—a step that the hon. Gentleman did not feel able to take this year.
        Beer smuggling is an enormous threat to the industry. It is a relatively new trade, if I may call it that, and we cannot estimate the extent to which the gradual build-up in the past 18 months has led to the undermining of the industry. The problems that are visible now are a fraction of the problems that will confront us in a few years' time if action is not taken.

        65
        The Government, in deciding their panic measures—having lost the VAT vote—sought only to plug holes in the short term, rather than to consider changes in taxation to preserve the industry for the medium and long term. We are witnessing the emergence of a whole new subculture—a black market sub-culture, whereby smuggled drink, and indeed tobacco, is easily obtainable. It would be putting it politely to say that it is remiss of the Chancellor to take little notice of that danger—that undermining of the tax base and the industry. I am not speaking about legitimate cross-border shopping; I am speaking about the very expensive occupation of smuggling, and the damage that that does to the industry.
        Mr. Nigel Forman: Do I take it that the hon. Lady will base all her arguments on illegal cross-border imports of alcohol, or will she take account of the point of view that I think that I remember her expressing when she was shadow spokesman on health—that there are sound grounds for increasing the price of alcohol, in all its various categories, to discourage people from the problems associated with alcoholism?
        Ms Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in his memory of what I may have said about reducing the consumption of alcohol, although I obviously agree that the balance of people's consumption of alcohol is an important health consideration. We are talking not about encouraging a greater consumption of alcohol but about arranging a tax system that does not create the opportunity for smuggling, which undermines the legitimate market. The difference between taxation here and taxation in France is so great that it provides that opportunity. The illegal entry of alcohol cannot be regulated by our health policies or controlled by our legitimate methods of dealing with alcohol consumption. That means that the Government's health policy on alcohol consumption is undermined by a tax policy that cannot deliver controls on that consumption.
        6.30 pm
        Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Lady mentioned that she took basically the same attitude to the cross-border smuggling of alcohol as she did to the smuggling of tobacco. Does that mean that she will oppose new clause 4, which introduces an increase in taxation, using the same argument? I assume that the Opposition will vote against new clause 4, just as they will vote against new clause 2.
        Ms Primarolo: I shall deal with that point when we discuss new clause 4. The point about the balance between taxation and the control of a product is important, as is the question of how the Government could not only prevent illegal imports which undermine our industries but provide for an increased consumption of, for example, cigarettes which clearly we do not want.
        Mr. Michael Stern: I take the hon. Lady back to what she was saying before the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). She rightly drew attention to the substantial difference between duties in France and duties in this country. When the matter was discussed during the Finance Bill Committee last year, one Front-Bench Labour Member drew from that the conclusion that the British
        66
        Government's policy should be substantially to reduce duty to levels much closer to the French levels. Is that now Labour party policy?
        Ms Primarolo: On the question of duty levels and the ability to prevent smuggling, the Danish example gives us a good idea of how duties need to be balanced to secure income for the Treasury and to ensure that there is no loss through smuggling. The point is— [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) want to hear the answer to his question or shall I move on to my next point?
        The differences between excise duties in France and those in Britain are so great that to ignore them undermines the industry. The problem is how income to the Treasury would be replaced. The Government have not come forward with any suggestion or plan to deal with that gap. In fact, they have done the opposite. In their desperation to raise taxation, they have exacerbated the problem. When the Chancellor made his comments about freezing duty in his original Budget, he was acknowledging those problems and the need to correct them. If that policy was good enough on 29 November, it is certainly good enough now.
        The importation and sale of undutied alcohol are criminal activities. At the lower end of the market, there are enormous opportunities for people to engage in that enterprise. On one trip, a large van carrying 25 cases can deliver profits of more than £700. Once a sales network has been established, smuggling can become a regular "business"—not a legitimate business. With a network of friends and friends of friends, the "business" is developed and the Government's whole strategy is undermined. The Government tell us that they are engaged in a thorough assessment of how to secure money for the Treasury. The truth is that they are saying that they can raise some taxes and lose some taxes and that, in the short term, they simply have to raise them.
        I give two examples. One individual was making three trips a week and clearing a profit of more than £2,000 a week, which was not taxed. Another gang was doing seven to 10 runs a week. About 15 people were involved and they had been carrying out that work for 11 months or more; they were making £10,000 a week of untaxed profit. In the beginning, opportunists were involved. Organised professionals are beginning to enter the "business". Yet again, the Government's free market ideology provides an opportunity for criminal activity.
        The Government originally told us that they would take the cheap option in dealing with the problem of excise duties. They said that they would go for controls on trade as the likeliest means of getting a grip on this illegal activity. Against the background of there being only 200 excise verification officers, the results achieved are good. The Government, however, have now announced that they will cut the number of Customs and Excise officers, the front-line officers who investigate those illegal activities. The Government need to explain why they are doing that—why they are going back on promises made to the House.
        How can only 200 excise verification officers deal with the problems of bootlegging? In the Leeds collection area, only 10 staff cover York, Leeds, Bradford, Halifax and Hull. In the south-west of England—I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West to this—eight staff cover the area from Bristol to Land's End,

        67
        which is a lot of coastline. In the Birmingham collection area, 12 staff cover the entire west midlands. The Government intend to reduce those figures through further cuts in Customs and Excise.
        The cuts in the number of Customs and Excise staff break a promise, given in the House on 2 February 1993 by the then Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), that there would be no reduction in the number of Customs and Excise officers. The Paymaster General went on to say:
        "I can readily undertake to keep matters under close review, particularly in the early stages of the single market—indeed, we are already doing so. As I have told the House before, we are determined to ensure that smuggling, bootlegging and the resale of goods brought back without UK duty having been paid are pursued with the utmost vigour of the law by all the customs officers that it requires."
        After being challenged by my hon. Friend, the Paymaster General said:
        "Yes. The customs and the Government must determine how we define necessary … and see what we determine to be necessary in order to police such matters firmly."—[Official Report, 2 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 287–88.]
        He said that the Government would keep the position under review and that there would be no cuts in the number of Customs and Excise officers. In the same Budget in which the Government have increased the excise duty on alcohol and declared a "prevention" strategy—with the option of increasing the number of customs officers to tackle smuggling—they have announced a 16 per cent. cut in the number of customs officers. Those cuts have immense implications for preventing the illegal importation of alcohol. Furthermore, the brewing industry has said that the future growth of the market in illegal alcohol products will lead to job losses in pubs, off-licences, supermarkets and cash-and-carry stores.
        The Government explained that they were cutting the number of customs officers in order to increase surveillance and ensure greater flexibility by deploying officers in vans. Officers will no longer need to perform routine inspections and front-line work; yet it is those routine inspections and spot checks of off-licences and cash-and-carrys that ensure that illegally imported alcohol does not find a retail outlet.
        The Government must implement a clear policy which respects the rights of individuals to engage in legal cross-channel shopping but which uses Customs and Excise to control the ports and ensure that alcohol does not enter the country illegally. The Government must also develop a clear strategy to deal with the problems caused by our European partners' differing levels of alcohol duty.
        The Government must strengthen Customs and Excise; tackle the illicit sale of contraband, including drugs and tobacco as well as alcohol; ensure that the negotiations in Europe bring about a reasonable and acceptable package of solutions to protect our industry; and urgently undertake a comprehensive review and present to the House ways in which taxation and Customs and Excise can work together to reduce smuggling and ensure the protection of British industry.
        A taxation system must work in the short, medium and long term. It must deliver revenue to the Government without creating unemployment or undermining their position in certain areas by allowing smuggling to continue.
        68
        The Government have picked on duty on beer and spirits as a soft target which will provide a "quick fix". They are undermining our industry. We are opposed to all the increases in duty—unlike the Scottish National party, which is opposed only to the increase in duty on whisky. We will vote against the increases in duty on whisky, beer and cider.
        Sir Ivan Lawrence: As the representative of the brewing centre of England and the universe, I am angry on my constituents' behalf at the proposed increase in the duty on beer. It shows that the Government have paid scant attention to my last two speeches which called for a reduction in excise duty on beer because of the inevitable consequences for the brewing industry and my constituency. Nobody is convinced that the taxation measures might not ultimately prove far worse for the industry, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). The Government will suffer if bootlegging and smuggling continue to leach revenue from the tax take, and I am not convinced that they have taken that factor accurately into account when doing their sums.
        I understand, of course, that there are very important reasons for increasing the duty on alcohol: it is the only way in which the deficiency in the value added tax take can be remedied. I am angered by the attitude of Labour Members. They are responsible for the increase in the cost of beer, and we must ensure that the finger is pointed at them. If, as the hon. Lady said, the increase in the excise duty on beer is a "quick fix", it is the Opposition who have forced the Government to come up with that remedy. They have forced the Government to extract VAT in this way. I do not think we need listen to any lectures on the subject from Labour Members, who have certainly not offered any alternatives.
        6.45 pm
        Dr. Marek: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
        Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall give way in a moment. We must look to the future and to reducing the excise duty yield from the brewing industry, so that it can flourish without that heavy taxation burden imposed by this or any other Government. However, it is difficult to see how we can achieve that aim. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has talked about getting our European partners to come into line with us. If it were a matter of a few pence difference in excise duty, it would be easy to see how that might be achieved. But the gap is enormous—the excise duty on a pint of beer is about 4p in France and 32p in Britain. It is difficult to see how my right hon. and learned Friend can be optimistic about getting our European partners to come into line with us, and he has not explained how that can be done.
        Do we not make achieving that aim still more difficult by setting the appalling example of increasing the duty on beer to boost the VAT take? With this measure, it is even more difficult for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to advance his argument with our European partners.
        The persistent hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has something to contribute to the debate.
        Dr. Marek: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. In the last debate I said that,

        69
        if the rise in value added tax were forgone, the Government would be faced with raising an extra £500 million; but that sum could have been recouped by not withdrawing the duty on share transactions. The Government could have easily gained £1 billion from that measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman would not suggest that because it does not affect his friends; he is seeking to make political capital from this issue. Will he persuade the Minister to accept that the Government should aim for long-term harmonisation of duties? If the Minister accepts that, we can make some progress.
        Sir Ivan Lawrence: My right hon. and learned Friend has already suggested that harmonisation is his aim—it must be, if we are to stay part of the European Community. If the share transfer tax that the hon. Gentleman mentioned were as easy to impose as he suggests, I am sure that it would have been adopted. The fact remains that it has not and cannot be done. The imposition of duty on alcohol is the simplest way, but it has dealt another blow to jobs and to the success of a great industry that is at the root of so much of our social life, never mind our industrial, economic or any other kind of life. We know as a party how the industry feels when we open the newspapers and learn how much of the industry's former support is ebbing away, which I deplore.
        My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Paymaster General should seriously address constructive ways of reducing this appalling duty burden. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will say to reassure not just the Committee but the people who send us here—a high proportion of whom drink in our pubs, clubs and restaurants, and many of whom are employed in the brewing industry. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General should make no mistake about it. I shall, of course, support him in the Lobby tonight, because the blame for all this lies on the other side of the Chamber, but that does not mean that I am any the less angry or will not continue my fight against the Government to bring down this inequitable, iniquitous and harsh measure against the industry that is the heart of the constituency that I represent.
        Mrs. Ewing: Amendments (a) and (b) would reduce by 10 per cent. the duty levied on all British spirits, but I wish to speak particularly of the Scottish whisky industry. I remind the Committee that this is the Burns season, when a fair amount of uisqe beatha will be consumed not only in Scotland but throughout the world. Last night, I attended a Burns supper in my constituency hosted by a major distillery organisation and attended by representatives of independent distilleries and other interests. When I replied on behalf of the lasses, I received the biggest cheer when I said that I was introducing these amendments, because those present appreciated the industry's significance to not only my constituency but the whole economy.
        The present boundaries of Moray contain more than 40 distilleries. They do not provide a huge number of jobs in direct employment but provide employment in farms, maltsters, warehouses, cooperages, transportation companies and tourism. Anyone who knows my constituency will be aware that it is a great pleasure to follow the whisky trail. All right hon. and hon. Members would receive a warm welcome in my constituency and learn a great
        70
        deal about the industry. That is true even of the Chancellor, although I would not advise him to show his face too soon in the light of his December statement.
        Right hon. and hon. Members often regard speeches about the whisky industry as frivolous, but in the areas in question, it is as significant as mining or shipbuilding to other parts of the country, and equally symbolic. If there is a depression in the whisky industry, there is a depression in our communities. That has nothing to do with consumption but has to do with the local as well as the national economy.
        The industry is a huge earner, particularly in exports, raising more than £2 billion last year. Ministers may argue that the 26p per bottle increase in duty will not be imposed abroad—but at a time when the industry is arguing to break down international tariff barriers and arguing for a level playing field in the European Union with other alcoholic drinks such as wines and beers, the Government have sent a signal that they do not care. Why should the industry try to persuade the Japanese to treat it with more respect and to get rid of the internal discrimination that exists in many far eastern countries?
        Mr. John McFall: Does the hon. Lady agree that the most pressing aspect is tax harmonisation in Europe? The Chancellor's action, in a moment of petulance, of imposing 26p on a bottle of whisky means that harmonisation is further away than ever. Seventy thousand jobs in Scotland depend on the whisky industry, and many will be jeopardised as a result of the Chancellor's decision. The need for harmonisation in Europe is, more than anything, the message that should be put across to the Government.
        Mrs. Ewing: I much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has a substantial interest in the subject because Allied Distillers has its headquarters in his area and provides a great deal of employment. He appreciates, as I do, the importance of harmonisation, for which we have argued for some time. We thought that the Government had begun to listen and to accept the need for cuts in the duty levied on whisky.
        On 20 November 1994, The Sunday Times in Scotland published a substantial article on the arguments made by the Scotch Whisky Association and the all-party group for a 10 per cent. reduction in duty. It stated:
        "Ministerial colleagues are convinced that Kenneth Clarke, the chancellor, is set to deliver a long-awaited boost to the scotch whisky industry."
        It was said that he had closely scrutinised the issues and was "particularly impressed" by the argument
        "in favour of countering the anomaly that the UK taxes home product scotch at almost twice the rate of imported wine …Ministerial sources said that the full 10% cut is 'expecting too much at one stroke' but they also pointed to a treasury briefing document published at the last budget which said: 'The UK duty on spirits …is already relatively high and seriously out of line with the rates of duty elsewhere in the single market'."
        That showed that the Treasury was listening. The Chancellor's action in quickly attacking the industry could only have been a fit of pique resulting from the vote on an increase in VAT on domestic fuel. The duty on alcohol already brings substantial amounts into the Treasury's coffers every year. The last time UK duty on whisky was increased, there was a net reduction in Treasury income, so the Treasury cut off its nose to spite its face, rather

        71
        than boost an industry that generates so much money for the Government and provides thousands of jobs in Scotland and many other parts of the United Kingdom.
        The Treasury should have shown more respect and devised something simpler—such as the tax suggested by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). If it had examined the public sector borrowing requirement, it would have realised that an increase in VAT on domestic fuel was unnecessary in the first place.
        I cannot emphasise enough how angry is the Scotch whisky industry at what has become known as the mini-bar Budget. The industry is furious because it is working hard to promote its products. I know people who fly from my constituency every week to far-off parts of the world to promote Scotch whisky. That is sometimes difficult, but the industry was making progress. Now it sees that the Government do not care about its wonderful product.
        Mr. Forman: In what sense does an increase in duty on a bottle of scotch damage the industry's export prospects?
        Mrs. Ewing: The domestic market is damaged—sales have fallen—but it is the message sent out that really matters. It shows our attitude to a unique industry, the quality of whose product is unrivalled in the world. The industry brings in money to the Treasury directly and it attracts as many international tourists a year as a great many other attractions put together.
        Recently, Macallan whisky chairman Allan Shiach met Clint Eastwood's production company
        "on the day Kenneth Clarke did his Dirty Harry act on the Scotch industry. It did not make his day. 'If the government shoots itself in the foot, I am not sure why everybody else has to limp'".
        The Government have wounded the Scotch whisky industry and the whole UK spirit industry. I trust that hon. Members will seriously consider supporting our amendments; we shall certainly vote with the official Opposition on the new clause.
        7 pm
        Mr. James Couchman: It may be for the convenience of the House to know that although I ran public houses until the beginning of last November, and had been doing so in London for 25 years, I have now disposed of those interests, although I briefly remain a non-executive director of the company in question.
        I have listened carefully to the speeches so far, in which several hon. Members have mentioned the fact that bootlegging has been on the increase since the barriers went down on 1 January 1993. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether expectations of the duty to be collected have been met or, if they have not been met, what the shortfall in the year to April 1994 was. What was the shortfall, if any, for the first three quarters of this year? I believe that the House needs that information, because the mini-Budget has proved to be profoundly unhelpful to an industry that has suffered greatly in the past three years.
        The public house in London is under threat, not just from bootleggers—although they are undoubtedly a factor—but from the fact that people's drinking habits are dramatically changing. Bootlegging is one thing; people's consciousness of health is another. In London and the
        72
        south-east there has been a dramatic decline in trade over the past three years, and the industry shows no sign of recovering from the recession.
        It would have been far better if my right hon. and learned Friend had listened to the case put to him by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association in the middle of last year, when it suggested that progressive harmonisation with rates of duty on the continent would lead to increased employment in this important industry—in production, and in wholesale and retail. That should have been done instead of putting a relatively small additional burden on top of the duty already charged.
        There were expectations that the first Budget might have taken a modest step in the right direction by reducing duty. That was not to be, and the trade was duly disappointed. But it was horrified by the mini-Budget, which put a 4 per cent. increase on duties and which sent out the wrong messages. So trade will continue to be depressed and many jobs will be lost, as will many drink outlets in the retail, wholesale and off-licence sectors.
        I look forward to the day when my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to tell us that we are about to move towards the duty levels that prevail on the continent.
        Mr. Alan Meale: I, too, oppose the increased levies on beer. I declare an interest, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary beer club—an unpaid post, I might add.
        It was not just pique but cheek on the part of the Government to introduce such an increase. They are trying to keep wage increases down to 1 or 2 per cent. at the same time as inflicting the increase on the beer trade, which is so important to the Treasury. I understand that the industry, directly and indirectly, supplies the Treasury with about £12 billion a year. An increase of 4 per cent. will inevitably be passed on to the customer. Furthermore, jobs linked directly and indirectly to the industry will be lost.
        The beer trade has already lost about 70,000 jobs—including jobs in other sectors related to the industry—in the past six years. That important industry generates about 750,000 jobs in Britain. My constituency is the location for both the Mansfield brewery and the Tom Cobleigh retail outlet. The constituency has suffered 6,000 job losses because of mine closures; if we now lose the brewery and Tom Cobleigh, the situation will be serious indeed.
        Dividing up the 750,000 jobs in the industry among the 650 seats in the House gives a figure that shows that the industry is just as important to most other hon. Members. A 4 per cent. increase in duty would lead to another 10,000 jobs, direct and indirect, being lost to the industry. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson described the scale of the problem facing the beer industry in Britain due to a lack of action. Cross-border imports are flooding in from Europe at a rate of about a million pints a day because of the huge duty differential, which the Government have done nothing to remedy it. That represents 3.5 per cent. of all United Kingdom beer sales and 15 per cent. of all UK take-home sales. It also amounts to the same as the sales from every single pub in Kent, the west midlands and west Yorkshire, and the output of 18 regional brewers.

        73
        Many hon. Members have been on official day trips by bus to the continent— [Interruption.] They are not jollies; I do not know anyone who wants to go to Calais for a day just for a jolly. Be that as it may, heavy advertising by cross-channel ferry companies has led to people going across with their vans—to such an extent that our beer club discovered, in November 1993, that there were no vans for hire in Kent until the following February. They had all been booked by people who hired them to make two or three trips a day to the continent, to make thousands of pounds a week.
        The lack of Government action to close the differential has rendered the situation extremely serious. In France I can buy a small bottle of beer for 11p, a price that includes the tax and duty. In Britain, we would pay 15p or 16p in duty and excise alone for the same bottle. We cannot compete on those terms.
        The Government increase taxes and duties on beer while cutting the number of staff at Customs and Excise, whose unions have been told by the Government that they intend to cut 4,000 jobs in the Department. That represents 16 per cent. of the entire Customs and Excise operation. How can that be reconciled with helping the beer industry to make progress or with retaining those 750,000 jobs? We cannot stand up in Europe for our beer industry unless we start to tackle some of those problems.
        The Chancellor admitted in his Budget speech that no Chancellor could remain unmoved in the face of the evidence that had been presented. If we are not willing to recognise what he said and do not start to take on board the seriousness of the problem, the British pub will be lost for ever.
        Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to correct the wrong impression that he is certainly giving me, which is that every person who goes abroad and returns with cheap drink is evading duty. Most of that activity is completely legal trade and part of being in the European Union, which I understand his party supports.
        Mr. Meale: The hon. Lady is right. Much of the activity that we are talking about is legal trade. In a way, that is the problem. Unfortunately, there is an ever-growing trade in smuggling. If she has any doubts, she might like to talk to those of her hon. Friends who have visited France and seen queues of vehicles stretching for half a mile. I am talking of not only vans but half-empty or empty lorries, which are being loaded with pallets of beer. Those vehicles will return to the United Kingdom across the channel. Perhaps she will choose to talk to those of her hon. Friends who have visited pubs and clubs, or to those who have talked to brewers in Scotland, the north-east, the north-west, the midlands, the east and west and London. Over the past 18 months, 12,000 pubs have been lost, mainly in the south and south-east. The direct cause has been the beer and spirits that have come into the country from across the channel.
        Mrs. Lait: I have made three speeches making precisely those points. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not been following proceedings during debates on the Budget and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
        Mr. Meale: I feel sorry that I allowed the hon. Lady to intervene. She made an irrelevant point.
        74
        If the hon. Lady believes in what she said when discussing the Finance Bill on Second Reading and if she believes in the arguments that are being advanced to explain why an increase in duty is wrong for the beer industry—I have in mind those who depend upon the industry for their employment and an industry that is paying such a great deal of money to the Chancellor year after year—she will vote in the Opposition Lobby.
        If we do not change the price differentials between buying beer in this country and abroad, we shall lose the British pub. That will have serious consequences for all communities.
        Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to have the opportunity to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and to repeat some of the arguments that I have advanced in other debates. I apologise to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench because this is the fourth time that I have spoken on this subject since the Budget statement. I find no comfort in hearing Opposition Members make precisely the points that I have already made. I suppose that I can comfort myself by thinking that at least they are learning something.
        The increase in excise duty that we are facing on alcohol and tobacco will result in job losses. It will have an effect on the nation's health and will quite significantly undermine the rule of law. There are various options. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General has assured me on many occasions that the Government are planning to approximate our rates of duty with those of our European partners. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) drew attention to the huge differentials between the United Kingdom and our European partners.
        I understand that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General is pressing for changes, and I would like to know what progress he expects to make. I would like also to know that he is encouraging other members of the Government, such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to press her opposite numbers in the EU so that they, too, are putting pressure on their Chancellors to increase duties because of the damage to health that is happening in countries such as France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece.
        I re-emphasise that while I make no criticism of our excise officers, who do a good job, it must be recognised that prevention is not paying. We are already spending more on preventing the smuggling of beer, wine and tobacco than on the products that are being recovered. History re-emphasises that argument. I wish very much that the Treasury would do its sums and work out the excessive cost of prevention over the cure, which is approximation of duties. The Treasury should stop regarding excise as the milch cow of first resort—when in trouble, first increase excise duties.
        Mr. Salmond: While the hon. Lady is waiting for other European countries to change their policies to get the Government off the hook, and given that this is the fourth time that she has made her points to the Government Front Bench— those on the Government Front Bench seem not to be taking much notice of her— is she proposing any stronger action such as voting against the actions of which she disapproves?
        Mrs. Lait: I see no point in voting against an increase in duties that has had to be put in place because of the irresponsible behaviour of Opposition Members.

        75
        I hope that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General will give me an assurance that the Treasury will think more strategically about the use of excise duty and stop regarding it as the milch cow that will solve any problem when we need to raise revenue quickly. I hope that that is the direction in which the Treasury is planning to move.
        7.15 pm
        Mrs. Helen Liddell: I do not have the same constituency interest as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) or my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). However, like many Scots Members, I have whisky interests within my constituency.
        We are faced with an issue that spans the United Kingdom. The action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in imposing increased duty on alcohol has an impact on major manufacturing industry. During the lifetime of the Government we have seen repeated attacks on manufacturing industry, and the Scotch whisky industry is a major part of the manufacturing sector. It is of great strategic importance to the United Kingdom because it draws heavily on indigenous suppliers. Its United Kingdom valued added is estimated to be about 70 per cent. It is sold in 190 overseas markets. It is very much a standard bearer for quality goods from the United Kingdom.
        It is appalling that United Kingdom tax treatment limits the ability of the industry to have the same impact in Britain as it has in other countries. It is ironic that in his first Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer took measures to ensure that the price of a bottle of champagne was reduced by 27p. Even after his second go at presenting the Budget, a bottle of champagne will be 20p cheaper. It is appalling that we do not recognise the impact on our industries and manufacturing businesses of moves that were made by the Chancellor following the shambles of his initial Budget statement on 29 November.
        There can be no case for increasing tax discrimination by fiscally hitting spirits in general more harshly than tobacco in the mini-Budget. The Chancellor excluded hand-rolling tobacco from the mini-Budget specifically because of the European dimension. Why could he not extend that commonsense attitude to the spirits industry?
        I have no hope that we shall hear any common sense from the Treasury Bench tonight. When the Government last increased duty on whisky—there was a 25p increase in the price of a bottle of whisky—the net impact was an £80 million decrease in the revenue available to the Exchequer following the slump in the industry as a result of that increased taxation. It is appalling to think that a critical and strategic industry should be treated in that way.
        Scotch whisky is one of the United Kingdom's top five export-earning industries and shares top billing with cars, aircraft, North sea oil and its derivatives, and high-tech products. As the hon. Member for Moray pointed out, in 1993 its export earnings topped £2 billion for the first time, and 40 per cent. of whisky sales are in the European Union. Our other spirits contributed another £175 million to the United Kingdom's export earnings.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton pointed out that, directly and indirectly, the whisky industry employs 70,000 people—four times more than the 15,000 who are directly employed. The industry generates more than £
        76
        1 billion of business with suppliers, yet the tax levied on Scotch whisky and other spirits is virtually twice the rate per unit of alcohol applied to wine and beer. I recognise the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) employed on behalf of beer brewing, however, which is also important to the economy of many communities.
        The two Budgets of 1993 set no increase in the excise duty on Scotch whisky, yet when the Chancellor was backed into a corner by his own lack of foresight and by the shambles that the Government created in his first Budget, the first people he chose to attack were workers in a valuable manufacturing industry who play a key part in our economy.
        What are the growth prospects for the Scotch whisky industry? After a slump following the previous tax increase, great marketing efforts gave the industry an increased profile—especially in its bicentenary—in the United States, Japan and throughout the European Union. A British industry has the option to grow, but the Government are directly attacking that option. They are so shortsighted that they do not realise the opportunities for a crucial industry.
        Scotch whisky is price-sensitive. There is no doubt that the increase of 26p on a bottle of Scotch whisky will affect the fragile recovery in the industry. Many people in the whisky communities suffered directly as a consequence of the previous attacks on the industry. Jobs and distilleries were lost as a result. We are throwing away the heritage of large communities in Scotland and the associated industries involved in the distribution and marketing of Scotch whisky, throughout the United Kingdom.
        We must narrow the tax discrimination against Scotch whisky throughout the Community. We were led to believe that the Chancellor would be vociferous in his support for the industry and for tax harmonisation. I have heard nothing from the Treasury Bench today to convince me that that promise will be kept. I am worried that there will be a negative impact on the United Kingdom economy and that the Government are being short-sighted.
        I am not merely concerned about the impact on the Scotch whisky industry. Whisky blenders in my constituency also manufacture gin. The gin manufacturers association just celebrated its 50th anniversary and it, too, is worried about the impact of the increase in duty on such a crucial manufacturing industry.
        Mr. Nigel Evans: I have spoken on this topic on several occasions and I thought it important not to let this opportunity pass without saying a few words.
        Last year, I and several other members of the Standing Committee on the Deregulation and Contracting Bill—including my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth), who cannot speak in today's debate—tried to save the great British pint of beer, including its head. Today we want to save the great British pub, which is vitally important, as we heard from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Neale).
        How many pubs have closed partly as a result of the massive differentials in duty on British and French beer? It is estimated that a million pints a day are being brought into this country. Something has to be done to stem that massive tide, and the problem is growing.

        77
        One can travel very cheaply across the channel to Calais because of the many special offers. The channel tunnel has opened since I last visited the town, so the problem will get worse. It is estimated that beer from Calais accounts for 15 per cent. of United Kingdom take-home sales. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) mentioned the illegal trade, but much of it is legal. Many people want to travel to Calais and try different beers, and I do not condemn them for that.
        Last year I went to Dover to see at first hand the problem faced by Customs and Excise officers due to the amount of beer being imported into this country illegally. On the morning of my visit, two transit vans were stopped. One was packed to the roof with beer that had been brought in with some sort of documentation to show that it was for a party to celebrate winning a contract, which was illegal as it was a business deal. Someone else had brought in a transit van full of alcohol supposedly for personal consumption, but the owner had a list of addresses in the United Kingdom where the alcohol was to be sold.
        I was very impressed with the work of Customs and Excise officers in Dover. I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) that I was visiting the port, as he also has done, because of the problem. The problem is indeed massive, and it can only get worse.
        I also visited Calais, with the hon. Member for Mansfield, as a member of the all-party beer group. We saw at first hand the problems that the British brewing industry is experiencing. It is not just a matter of people bringing in a few extra cans in their cars. We saw heavy goods vehicles loading pallets of beer at the cash and carry stores which entice such trade. Judging by the tarpaulins, the vehicles came from all parts of Britain. People think that illegal imports are a problem only in the south-east of England, but that is not so: beer is being transported throughout the United Kingdom and the massive tax differentials make this worth while.
        The alcohol is being distributed in many ways. It is not merely a matter of Arthur Daley characters shoving one or two cases here and there. It has become a trade for many people and the alcohol is distributed through all kinds of outlets, including car boot sales, and so forth. Indeed, I have raised in an Adjournment debate the problem of car boot sales and the amount of beer coming into this country.
        I am concerned because I have brewing interests in my constituency—Thwaites, Whitbread and Samlesbury are on the edge of it and are all vital for job creation, as well as being particularly good beers— and because brewing is important throughout the United Kingdom. All the breweries, both small and large play a vital part in the United Kingdom brewing industry and I do not want them to suffer any more damage.
        The British pub has become a social centre—a place where the local villagers can gather and talk—and I do not want the great British pub to be damaged. Pubs are one of the first places that many tourists want to visit when they come here because they are famous throughout the world. Many, however, have closed. The hon. Member for Mansfield mentioned the figure of 2,000. One can only estimate how many jobs were involved. If the differential is allowed to continue and if the amount of beer that one is allowed to bring back into this country is not changed,
        78
        that problem will only worsen. More pubs will close, more breweries will be damaged and more jobs will be lost.
        During my visit to Calais, I noticed that Sainsbuiy's had opened its own off-licence in one of the hypermarkets to sell alcohol to British customers because it thought that it knew British customers best. That off-licence is part of a much larger hypermarket where the sale of British and continental beers is going on apace and where the marketing is directed towards the British consumer. The signs are not just in French but in English, the prices not just in francs but in pounds, and the signs show how much cheaper it is to buy beer there to bring back into this country.
        One can only imagine how cost-effective it is for people, especially those living towards the south of England, to make regular trips across the channel. The number of people going over to France and buying large amounts of beer, which they would normally buy in British off-licences or in British pubs, was a considerable problem over the Christmas period.
        With the hon. Member for Mansfield, I was part of a delegation to the Paymaster General about the problems. We thought that we had won the battle before the initial Budget statement. At least we had taken a step in the right direction. This new clause, however, is a step in the wrong direction. A penny extra tax is neither here nor there, of course: the problem is much bigger than that, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has said that he is looking at the greater problem of the differential.
        7.30 pm
        As a matter of urgency, we should try to approximate tax on beer on the continent with that in the United Kingdom. In the mean time, since that may take a number of years and we cannot afford to wait that long for the problem to be rectified, will the Treasury team assure us that the number of Customs and Excise officers operating at ports of entry is built up to ensure that the chances of people being stopped when trying to bring back beer are greater and that the chances of prosecuting them are also greater? Can we ensure that the excise verification officers operating in the United Kingdom, who look around shops and car boot sales, also look at the amount of beer brought through customs and that more prosecutions are brought? If we stand back and do nothing, the problem will only worsen. We need to take action, and we need to take it now.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: There are two basic arguments that the Government seemed to have ignored. The first is about smuggling, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech was a major reason for not widening the duty. A week later, he promptly widened the duty. The second is that brewing and especially distilling are major British industries in terms of employment and exports. The Government do not seem to have addressed the importance of those industries at all.
        The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made the point that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, up to the second Budget, had given a clear indication that he had understood the argument, taken it on board and was going to do something about it. That is why I maintain that he took the decision in the mini-Budget simply out of political pique. He had been beaten on the first vote, so he wanted to be vindictive on the second. There was no intellectual credibility to his decision.

        79
        The most effective authority to put against the Chancellor's decision is the Chancellor himself. He can be quoted his own record of saying that widening the duty would not work and that it would damage the home industry, increase the problems of smuggling and probably damage Exchequer revenues. Yet the Government are going ahead with the decision to widen the duty.
        Yet again, the Opposition parties together are trying to save the Government from themselves. Conservative Members have made speech after speech agreeing with the arguments put forward by Opposition Members but then saying that they intended to vote with the Government. We are told that that is because they hope and believe that the Government will address the problem, but in the meantime the problem will become worse.
        The Government are in a ridiculous situation. It is indefensible and shows a total lack of understanding of the fact that our industries require a tax regime which gives them the confidence from which they can build up an export market. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) knows perfectly well that a strong home market is an essential precondition of a successful export market. It is not that firms cannot export when there is a declining home market, but that the home market provides the base and the profit to finance the export drive.
        When I was newly elected to the House, because I was the hon. Member for Gordon and because I spoke about the spirits industry, I was described by one columnist as "the hon. Member for Gordon, the home of malt gin." I remind the Committee that the gin industry is a significant producer as well—we are not just pleading for the scotch whisky industry, but for the whole home-produced spirits industry.
        It is odd that the Government seem to have regarded the wine industry as deserving a fairer tax deal than the beer, whisky and gin industries, although this country produces relatively little wine. We make some wine, and some of it is quite good, but it is not a significant national industry. In contrast, we make an enormous amount of gin and whisky and we export it. We also make an enormous amount of beer. Yet the Government tax it more heavily than wine.
        If we were not in a single market scenario, I would suggest that the Government considered putting up the duty on wine and reducing the duty on spirits. There is a very good argument for that, not least because the alcohol content per unit in relation to the tax is such that whisky and gin are taxed at double the rate of wine, which is an unfair and distorted mix. Raising duty on wine and reducing duty on spirits would appeal to everyone because it would ensure that we protected our own industry and taxed imports. The trouble is that the single market does not make that a viable, long-term and sustainable proposition.
        If the Government are serious about taking the argument of the major brewing and distilling industries on board, they should abandon the new clause and at least freeze the duties. If they are to try to restore the industry's confidence, which has been seriously damaged by the Budget, they should quickly tell the House, the country and the industry exactly how they intend to resolve the matter and narrow the differentials. In reality, that can be
        80
        done only by recognising that duties in the United Kingdom will have to go down; no matter what agreement we may secure with our partners in the European Union about raising their duties to narrow the differential, there is no chance whatever of their coming anywhere near our rates.
        The health factor was raised by one hon. Member, but there is not a fair comparison between alcohol and tobacco. All the evidence is clear that tobacco is fundamentally harmful to all users. It is a health hazard and a health risk. That is a justifiable reason for increasing the duties on tobacco, even though I acknowledge the smuggling problem. With alcohol, there is not such an absolute health factor to consider. The abuse of alcohol, not its existence, is a problem. It can be argued that alcohol used in moderation is positively good for us. Indeed, a slogan used to tell us that Guinness was good for us and many a doctor will tell patients that a nip of whisky before bed will enhance their sleep and prolong their life. Not enough people are taking that nip, and the Chancellor has made it that little bit more difficult and expensive.
        For all those reasons, my colleagues and I will vote against new clause 2 and we look to the Government to indicate how and when they intend to do something not to make the problem worse, but to tackle it and narrow the differential.
        Mr. Stern: I wish to make a few brief comments. First, I should emphasise my continuing interest in these debates over the years. I represent part of the city of Bristol, which contains the Courage brewery, a considerable number of substantial wine importers and a major centre for the manufacture of cider. As a result, it is rightly twinned with Bordeaux, which itself is not unknown for its wine.
        Before considering the broad argument which has been rehearsed by many hon. Members today, I want to follow up a point that was raised in last year's debate. When my hon. Friend the Paymaster General replies to the debate, I hope that he will be able to take this point on board. There has been much doom and gloom today about the low level of seizures of smuggled alcohol. However, the level of seizures is increasing substantially and is now a real deterrent in certain parts of the country.
        Nothing has been said today about what should happen to the very valuable product being seized. It irks me, and I believe that it irks many people, that the beer, wine and spirits seized as a result of smuggling are simply poured into a hole in the ground. From the point of view of sheer waste, that is not acceptable. In Committee last year, I raised with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who replied to that debate, the question of whether the seized wines, spirits and beer could be re-exported so that they would not affect the home market. In reply, the Chief Secretary said that the Government were considering vinegarising or denaturing the seized alcohol and recycling the glass and metal involved. Although there is provision in later clauses for a new tax regime for denatured and vinegarised alcohol, there is no provision for taking the matter forward. Our job of selling the public the idea of a continuing tough regime on imports will be much more difficult if the Government are engaged in a vast waste of the products that they are seizing.

        81
        I want now to consider the more general argument. Although the Opposition may be heartened by some of my remarks, I must begin by totally dismissing the comments from official and unofficial Opposition spokesmen today. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made clear in last year's debate, their only solution to the problem is to throw substantial sums of money at it. They cannot think of anything else to do about it. I totally reject the absence of policy from the Opposition: simply saying, "We must do something about this", is not a solution.
        The Government have a policy which they had to breach in part this year because of the irresponsible vote by the Opposition on VAT on domestic fuel. I am not entirely happy with the Government's position. It is all very well to say, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, that the long-term solution is harmonisation of duties, but if we consider the level of harmonisation required and the time scale involved, one is clearly looking at 50 years of cloud cuckoo land.
        We must understand that we are asking our European allies and partners to disadvantage their own home producers in favour of our producers and to decrease their market share in favour of ours. It is increasingly unlikely that we shall make any substantial progress on harmonisation. It just will not happen. If that is the Government's only alternative policy for a long-term solution to the problem of the skewing of the single market against our producers because of the existing pattern of duty, I must tell my hon. Friend the Paymaster General that that is not good enough, so please go away and think again. Simply to rely on our European allies to disadvantage themselves for our benefit is unlikely to prove to be a successful policy in the long term.
        We need to think again about the problem. Clearly the Chancellor cannot forgo the kind of revenue that we are talking about this year, or in the long term, by a consistent and steady reduction down to something approximating European levels of excise duty. But if substantial duty reduction is not available to us, what is?
        Mr. Thomas Graham: I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer standing at the Dispatch Box not that long ago lambasting Scottish Members who had voted against the imposition of VAT on fuel. He said that we were to blame for the increase in duty on whisky. That was lamentable. It was not a wee grouse; it was a big grouse, and that big grouse could cost thousands of jobs in the whisky industry.
        7.45 pm
        The Chancellor was being punitive. He did not realise what damage he was going to inflict on the whole of Britain. He had not considered the earnings that the whisky industry generates and the more than £1 billion that is involved in supplying the industry to ensure that it survives.
        I have already said that 15,000 people are employed directly in the industry and that nearly 70,000 folk are employed indirectly. As a former engineer, I recall working in the industry. I did not produce whisky, but I did produce engineering machinery for the industry. Thousands of folk produce machinery for the whisky industry.
        82
        Some of those engineering companies are involved in other aspects of manufacturing, for which they require the support of the whisky industry. For example, the chemical industry benefits from engineering companies involved in the whisky industry. Some pipe-fitting companies in the whisky industry supply other industries in Britain. If the whisky industry is affected, those companies will be punished.
        The brewing industry is very much like the whisky industry; it relies on the same engineering skills and development. I am not separating my support between the beer industry or the whisky industry, which are an important part of life in Great Britain and which play an important role in attracting much-needed revenue to this country.
        I recognise the terrible problem caused by the illegal importation of drink from the continent. As a Scotsman, I do not benefit too much from that. We are told that there are supposed to be convoys of vans travelling to Glasgow. I am a car boot lover; I like to go to car boot sales. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that people can buy whisky and spirits at car boot sales. I have never seen them for sale at car boot sales. However, I must confess that I have seen cigarettes and cigars for sale.
        The Chancellor has not thought this out, but that is typical of the Government. They have thought nothing out in relation to taxation. If they had, we would not be in the trouble that we are in now. The 17.5 per cent. VAT charge on domestic fuel was incredible. I am glad to say that the combined power of the House destroyed that rise, but we have now been hit by this tax increase.
        Hundreds of people in my constituency work directly in the whisky industry. They work in the Chivas Regal factory and in the Johnny Walker bottling plant, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams). They rely on the industry to provide them with their daily bread and to ensure that at the end of the week they get their wages and, at the end of the month, they get their salaries. It is very important to have dignity and to be paid.
        The Government will deny those people through their punitive tax system and possibly their anti-Scottish feeling. They will impose an additional 20 per cent. duty on whisky, yet they have reduced duty on champagne. Hon. Members should think about that; it is absolutely mind-boggling. I have mentioned before that the Chancellor supports champagne Charlie. He is making it easier for folk who are stinking rich to buy their champagne cheaper. Ordinary men and women who love a wee tipple, a pint of beer or a wee hauf of whisky must pay through the nose because the Chancellor could not run a bus to Saltcoats, which is not very far from where I live.
        I hope that this is the Chancellor's last Budget. I hope that it is a case of that famous saying of Bell's, 'afore ye go. I am happy for the Chancellor to have his last whisky 'afore ye go. I hope that he pours a further wee double and drinks to a new whisky, SS Politician. We all know how that went—down the hole—but it created great work for Scottish folk.
        The Government have an opportunity to save the scotch whisky industry and the brewing industry from further redundancies by turning from the disastrous route of

        83
        increasing duty on our daily tipple. They should look for more sensible ways to raise taxation without creating further redundancies and unemployment in our country.
        Mr. Nigel Forman: I enjoy a wee dram as much as I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), and I pay tribute to the robust way in which he represents his constituents' interests.
        There has been a bit of Scottish and, indeed, English hyperbole, and I should like to pour a little cold water on some arguments—I shall be a bit of a spoil-sport, in fact.
        When members of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee recently considered differential duties, we were not completely convinced by the arguments that were put to us by licensed retailers of alcohol or by publicans. We listened carefully to what they said, but we concluded that the arguments were somewhat overstated.
        Opposition Members in particular have stressed what they allege to be the damaging and, indeed, almost terminal effects of a fairly small duty increase in the Budget, but, bearing in mind changes in the drinks industry and in many other manufacturing industries, one is bound to conclude that in recent times new, changing technology and improved productivity have been at least as important, and probably much more so, than any marginal changes in duty.
        Hon. Members have made great play of the problems facing many pubs. I know from experience that pubs in London and in the south-east have had a hard time, but the reasons for that go far wider than the subject of this rather narrow debate. Changing social habits, the growth of off-licences, the tendency of supermarkets to sell large quantities of alcohol to people to drink at home with friends and the drink-driving laws have had a major influence on pubs, not to speak of the temptation of some large breweries to kit out their pubs in a standard manner that makes them look more like building societies than pubs and has detracted from the character and individuality of many traditional British pubs.
        There are other factors, such as the longer-run arguments about alcohol consumption and points that I have tried to raise with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). There is no doubt from the figures that the average industrial worker now has to work significantly fewer hours to be able to afford a bottle of scotch or a pint of beer than 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The real price of alcohol has fallen, with some adverse consequences for medical and health problems, which is the point that I raised with the hon. Lady.
        It is rather surprising that the hon. Member for Bristol, South has made such a swift, easy transition from her shadow health duties to the shadow Treasury portfolio. She has clearly forgotten many of her party's arguments about the desirable health effects of discouraging excessive alcohol consumption by raising the real price of alcohol.
        Ms Primarolo: That is exactly the point. Large amounts of alcohol are being smuggled into the country. The Treasury statistics on how much is coming in illegally and how much duty is lost are disputed. If alcohol is
        84
        coming in unregulated, children and young people have greater access to it. Therefore, health problems are increased, not decreased.
        Mr. Forman: The hon. Lady has a small point. According to the best estimates of Customs and Excise, the amount of alcohol that is imported illegally is not significant—less than a fifth—compared with the total volume of alcohol consumed.
        Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but, leaving aside the smuggling issue, does he accept that the price of drinks over the bar is a relevant calculation because in every other European country drink is cheaper than it is at home, which encourages more British holidaymakers to go abroad rather than to stay at home and discourages others from coming here? That fact should be taken into account.
        Mr. Forman: That might be a factor for keen drinkers, particularly those who enjoy continental wine, for example, but I doubt whether it is a determining factor when most families decide whether to go abroad or to stay at home, or perhaps not to go on holiday at all.
        Opposition Members have been remarkably coy in stating where the revenue would come from if their amendment was successful. There is no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor needed to find the extra revenue in fairly short order. I have heard no suggestion of how Opposition Members would make up the shortfall. Would they simply allow it to be added to the public sector borrowing requirement, with all the unforeseen consequences that that could have for interest rates?
        Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) suggested that perhaps the evil was that the Government have not taxed champagne enough. Perhaps Opposition Members propose to tax champagne socialists more.
        Mr. Forman: That might be so. Perhaps certain future gatherings in Brussels will prove less attractive if that policy is followed.
        I wish to end my speech on a fairly serious and contained point, on which I would appreciate a comment by my hon. Friend the Minister. Has he heard from the Opposition how they would make up the revenue shortfall?
        Mr. George Stevenson: I am a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I represent many people employed in the brewing industry. As a result of the proposed tax, many of them are likely to lose their jobs in the near future.
        Just before 29 November, I met representatives of the Midlands Brewery Society in my constituency. They were at pains to say once more to me, as they had said to many other hon. Members, that, if there was no movement in the duty on beer, they would face a serious and disastrous situation. I asked them to clarify what they would experience if there was an increase. They said that, after detailed consideration—they did not pluck the figure out of the air—10,000 jobs in the industry would be lost, either directly or indirectly. I have heard no Conservative Member challenge that figure.

        85
        8 pm
        Every speech that I have heard this evening has suggested that the duty will cost jobs in the whisky and beer industries and elsewhere. It is a tax on jobs. The Government continually tell my hon. Friends that the Opposition's taxation policies will cost jobs, so it is ironic that tonight the same Government— with the support of their Back Benchers— will vote for a tax that will certainly cost jobs.
        I was fascinated and intrigued by Conservative Members who suggested that they were seriously concerned about the tax. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) made that suggestion, but then scurried into their bolthole and camouflaged their concerns by blaming the Labour party for the tax. We are proud that we were able to play a significant role in thwarting the imposition of 17.5 per cent. VAT on fuel, which the country supported. Conservative Members who say that it is the Labour party's fault that taxation has been put up to levels that we have never experienced in modern peacetime, when it is a result of the incompetence of the Chancellor and of the Government, are pushing credibility to the extreme.
        I asked my constituents what they thought about the Chancellor of the Exchequer not putting any duty on beer in his original Budget statement. They did not believe it—they were incredulous about it. They did not believe that the Government meant anything that they said about taxation. They thought, too, that the Government were trying to discourage them from drinking beer and to encourage them to drink champagne. The Government failed on the latter aim, and within nine days they had failed my constituents on the former one.
        Hon. Members have stated that the Government should urgently seek dialogue with other European Union member states to try to equalise the taxation regime so that we can make progress on what is undoubtedly a serious problem— the massive difference between tax regimes. The problem has been described by many hon. Members on both sides, and I have no wish to repeat their comments.
        The Government cannot be serious about any such moves. In a previous life, I was a Member of the European Parliament and I clearly remember the Commission making proposals to harmonise excise duties on alcohol and tobacco. I remember that the first Government to reject any such moves was the British Government. I do not think that the assurances that the Government have apparently given can be serious.
        Let us speculate on the negotiating position of the Government if they told other member states that they wanted to debate harmonising excise duties on alcohol and tobacco. They would be asked why they wanted to do so, and they would reply, "We have just increased ours and we expect you to do the same." I must challenge that negotiating position, as it is absolutely incredible.
        I can well imagine the Prime Minister or the Chancellor saying from the Dispatch Box that such moves were to be made. The independent Tory party— those hon. Members who described themselves at the weekend as the real Tory party— would not stand for that. Given the Government's current policy on the European Union, there is no possibility that any move will be made on the crucial issue of harmonising taxation, even if it were the right thing to do.
        86
        Given that scenario and the concerns expressed by hon. Members about the Government's panic measure, two things should be done. The first is that the House should vote against new clause 2; the second is that the Government should urgently propose measures that would enhance Customs' ability to stop the illegal trade. Instead, they are making cuts in Customs and Excise. If we can do those two things, the House will be able to face the arguments that are being put outside with some credibility.
        The Paymaster General: The Opposition have announced their opposition to the measures before the House. At other times, the Labour party certainly has supported higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco on health grounds. That is an interesting reversal of a long-standing policy. [Interruption.] I am responding to a point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), who quoted with approval the example of Denmark. The Danish Government cut alcohol duty in response to large-scale cross-border shopping across its land border with Germany. They made a cut of 48 per cent. in beer and wine duty, yet consumption rose only slightly. The Danish Government then had to find compensatory tax increases elsewhere. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that we emulate Denmark, she must propose alternative sources of revenue.
        That brings me to the point of costs. We would forgo £155 million if we were to accept what has been urged on us by the Labour party, which would create a large hole in Government revenue. If the Labour party wants to pose as a party of financial responsibility, it must tell us what new taxes it would replace the duty with, or what public expenditure cuts it would make.
        The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is quoted in today's newspapers rightly castigating and criticising the Labour party for constantly making expenditure promises without saying how they would be paid for. Yet the hon. Gentleman and his party support a reduction in revenue of £155 million a year— a spectacular example of the pot calling the kettle black.
        Another point made by the Labour party, and echoed partly by some of my hon. Friends, concerned the efforts made by Customs and Excise to counter the smuggling of alcohol products. The hon. Member for Bristol, South got into a muddle about the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise staff who are supposed to be deployed in anti-smuggling efforts. She said that there were to be cuts in staff. I can confirm that the number of excise verification officers deployed in anti-smuggling duties will not be cut.
        Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to maintain the levels of prosecutions and of Customs officers at Dover port who check on smuggling? Will he further confirm that the Government will do everything possible to fight smugglers and to stop smuggling?
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can confirm that, and inform my hon. Friend— if he does not know already—that an extra 12 excise verification officers have been deployed to Dover in response to concerns expressed by industry and representations made by my hon. Friend.

        87
        My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) asked what is to happen to the increasing quantity of seized goods. We are considering a policy of sale without undermining the legitimate trade that we are seeking to protect.
        The general point that I should like to make to my hon. Friend and in particular to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), both of whom have persistently raised it with me, is that we are concerned to protect the legitimate trade and will pursue harmonisation through the European Union, although we would not want to lose our essential fiscal sovereignty over our excise duties.
        We have ensured that the biennial review, the first report of which was due by the end of last year but which was delayed, includes, at our insistence, a clause that requires the council to
        "take into account the proper functioning of the internal market and competition between the various categories of alcoholic drinks."
        Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will my hon. and learned Friend forgive me if I do not do so? I know that the House wishes to come to a resolution, but I want to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing).
        I assure the hon. Lady that we have the interest of the spirits industries firmly in mind. That is why we froze excise duty on spirits in the past three Budgets and, if we had had our way, we would have done so in this Budget too. But because of the House's decision to reject the 17.5 per cent. VAT rate on fuel, we needed to look elsewhere to restore revenue. The Government do not have the luxury of seeing revenues reduced without the obligation to replace them, but I remind her and the House that the duty on spirits will have reduced in real terms by more than 16 per cent. since 1985, even with the increase proposed in the new clauses.
        The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): For clarification, I should say to the Committee that I shall put a minimum of five Questions: first, That the new clause be read a Second time; secondly, the amendment; thirdly, That the new clause be added to the Bill; fourthly, That new clause 2 stand part of the Bill; and, fifthly, the amendments.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 290, Noes 251.

        Division No. 44]

        [8.11 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Baldry, Tony

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Alexander, Richard

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Bates, Michael

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Amess, David

        Bellingham, Henry

        Ancram, Michael

        Bendall, Vivian

        Arbuthnot, James

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Ashby, David

        Booth, Hartley

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Boswell, Tim

        Atkins, Robert

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        88

        Bowis,John

        Gorst, Sir John

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Grant,Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Brazier, Julian

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Bright, Sir Graham

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Hague, William

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

        Burns, Simon

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Burt,Alistair

        Hannam, Sir John

        Butler, Peter

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Butterfill, John

        Harris, David

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Haselhurst Alan

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hawksley, Warren

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hayes, Jerry

        Cash.William

        Heald, Oliver

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Churchill.Mr

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Clappison, James

        Hendry, Charles

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

        Hicks, Robert

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

        Coe, Sebastian

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Colvin, Michael

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Congdon, David

        Horam, John

        Conway, Derek

        Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Couchman, James

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourme)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Jack, Michael

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Day, Stephen

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Jessel, Toby

        Dicks, Terry

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Dover, Den

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Duncan, Alan

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Dunn, Bob

        Key, Robert

        Durant. Sir Anthony

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Dykes, Hugh

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Knapman, Roger

        Elletson, Harold

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Knox, Sir David

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Evennett, David

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Faber, David

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Fabricant, Michael

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Legg, Barry

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Leigh, Edward

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Lennox-Boyd, Sr Mark

        Forman, Nigel

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        Lidington, David

        Forth, Eric

        Lightbown, David

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Lord, Michael

        French, Douglas

        Luff, Peter

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Lyell Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Gale, Roger

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Gardiner, Sir George

        MacKay, Andrew

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        Maclean, David

        Garnier, Edward

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Gillan, Cheryl

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Madel, Sir David

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Mans, Keith

        89

        Marlow, Tony

        Shersby, Michael

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Sims, Roger

        Marshal, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Skeet Sir Trevor

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Soames, Nicholas

        Mayhew, RtHon Sir Patrick

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Merchant, Piers

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Mills, Iain

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Spring, Richard

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Stanley, RtHon Sir John

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Steen, Anthony

        Moss, Malcolm

        Stephen, Michael

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Stem, Michael

        Nelson, Anthony

        Stewart, Allan

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Streeter, Gary

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Sumberg, David

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Sykes, John

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Norris, Steve

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Ottaway, Richard

        Thomason, Roy

        Page, Richard

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Paice, James

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Patrick, Sir Irvine

        Thurnham, Peter

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

        Pawsey, James

        Tracey, Richard

        Peacock, Mrs Elizbeth

        Tredinnick, David

        Pickles, Eric

        Trend, Michael

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Trotter, Neville

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Viggers, Peter

        Rathbone, Tim

        Walden, George

        Redwood, RtHon John

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Waller, Gary

        Richards, Rod

        Ward, John

        Riddick, Graham

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Waterson, Nigel

        Robathan, Andrew

        Watts, John

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Wells, Bowen

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Wheeler, RtHon Sir John

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Whitney, Ray

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Whittingdale, John

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Willetts, Sir Jerry

        Sackville, Tom

        Willetts, David

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Wolfson, Mark

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Wood, Timothy

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Yeo, Tim

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Mr. Sydney Chapman, and

        Shepherd, Richard (Aidridge)

        Dr. Liam Fox

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Ainger.Nick

        Benton, Joe

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Allen, Graham

        Berry, Roger

        Alton, David

        Betts, Clive

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Blair, Rt Hon Tony

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Blunkett David

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Boateng, Paul

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Boyes, Roland

        Ashton, Joe

        Bradley, Keith

        Barnes, Harry

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Barron, Kevin

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Battle, John

        Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

        Bayley.Hugh

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Burden, Richard

        90

        Byers, Stephen

        Heppell, John

        Caborn, Richard

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Hinchliffe, David

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Hodge, Margaret

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Hoey, Kate

        Campbell-Savours, D N

        Home Robertson, John

        Canavan, Dennis

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cann, Jamie

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

        Chidgey, David

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Hoyle, Doug

        Church, Judith

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Clapham, Michael

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Clarke, Eric (Midothian)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Hutton, John

        Clelland, David

        Illsley, Eric

        Coffey, Ann

        Ingram, Adam

        Cohen, Harry

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Connarty, Michael

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Jamieson, David

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Janner, Greville

        Corbett, Robin

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Corston, Jean

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Cousins, Jim

        Jowell, Tessa

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Keen, Alan

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Khabra, Piara S

        Darling, Alistair

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Davidson, Ian

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Lewis, Terry

        Denham, John

        Liddell, Mrs Helen

        Dewar, Donald

        Litherland, Robert

        Dixon, Don

        Livingstone, Ken

        Dobson, Frank

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Donohoe, Brian H

        McAllian, John

        Dowd, Jim

        McCartney, Ian

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Macdonald, Calum

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        McFall, John

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        MacKinlay, Andrew

        Eastham, Ken

        Maclennan, Robert

        Enright, Derek

        McMaster, Gordon

        Etherington, Bill

        McNamara, Kevin

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        MacShane, Denis

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        McWilliam, John

        Fatchett Derek

        Madden, Max

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Maddock, Diana

        Flynn, Paul

        Mahon, Alice

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Mandelson, Peter

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Marek, Dr John

        Fraser, John

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

        Galbraith, Sam

        Martlew, Eric

        Galloway, George

        Maxton, John

        Gapes, Mike

        Meacher, Michael

        George, Bruce

        Meale.Alan

        Gerrard.Neil

        Michael, Alun

        Gilbert, RtHon Dr John

        Michael, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Milburn, Alan

        Gordon, Mrs Llin

        Miller, Andrew

        Gordon, Mildred

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Graham, Thomas

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Grant Bemie (Tottenham)

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Morley, Elliot

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

        Grocott, Bruce

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Gunnell, John

        Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

        Hain, Peter

        Mudie, George

        Hal, Mike

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Hanson, David

        O'Brien, Mike (N W'shire)

        Hardy, Peter

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Harvey, Nick

        O'Hara, Edward

        Henderson, Doug

        Olner, Bill

        91

        O'Neill, Martin

        Spearing, Nigel

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Spellar, John

        Pearson, Ian

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Pike, Peter L

        Stevenson, George

        Pope, Greg

        Stott Roger

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Strang, Dr. Gavin

        Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Straw, Jack

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Purchase, Ken

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Radice, Giles

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Randall, Stuart

        Timms, Stephen

        Raynsford, Nick

        Tipping, Paddy

        Redmond, Martin

        Turner, Dennis

        Reid, Dr John

        Tyler, Paul

        Rendel, David

        Vaz, Keith

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Walley, Joan

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Wareing, Robert N

        Rooker.Jeff

        Watson, Mike

        Rooney, Terry

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Ruddock, Joan

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

        Salmond, Alex

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wilson, Brian

        Sheerman, Barry

        Winnick, David

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Wise, Audrey

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Worthington, Tony

        Short, Clare

        Wray, Jimmy

        Simpson, Alan

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Skinner, Dennis

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Smith, Liew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

        Snape, Peter

        Mr. John Cummings

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time.
        Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in subsection (1), leave out '"£20.60"' and insert '"—£17.83"'—.—[Mrs. Ewing.]
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 288.

        Division No. 45]

        [8.25 pm

        AYES

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Skinner, Dennis

        Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Mr. Alex Salmond

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Bellingham, Henry

        Alexander, Richard

        Bendall, Vivian

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Seby)

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Amess, David

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Ancram, Michael

        Booth, Hartley

        Arbuthnot, James

        Boswell, Tim

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Ashby, David

        Bowis, John

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Atkins, Robert

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Brazier, Julian

        Baldry, Tony

        Bright Sir Graham

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Bates, Michael

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        92

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hannam, Sir John

        Burt, Alistair

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Butler, Peter

        Harris, David

        Butterfill, John

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Hawksley, Warren

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hayes, Jerry

        Carttiss, Michael

        Heald, Oliver

        Cash,William

        Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Churchill,Mr

        Hendry, Charles

        Clappison, James

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Hicks, Robert

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

        Coe, Sebastian

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Colvin, Michael

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Congdon, David

        Horam, John

        Conway, Derek

        Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre Forest)

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Couchman, James

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Jack, Michael

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Day, Stephen

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Jessel, Toby

        Dicks, Terry

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Dover, Den

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Duncan, Alan

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Dunn, Bob

        Key, Robert

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Dykes, Hugh

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Knapman, Roger

        Elletson, Harold

        Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Knight Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Knox, Sir David

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Evennett, David

        Lamont Rt Hon Norman

        Faber, David

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Fabricant, Michael

        Lawrence, Sir lvan

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Legg, Barry

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Leigh, Edward

        Fishbum, Dudley

        Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

        Forman, Nigel

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        Lidington, David

        Forth, Eric

        Lightbown, David

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Lord, Michael

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Luff, Peter

        French, Douglas

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Fry, Sir Peter

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Gale, Roger

        MacKay, Andrew

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Maclean, David

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Garnier, Edward

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Madel, Sir David

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Mans, Keith

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Gorst, Sir John

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Merchant Piers

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Mills, Iain

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Hague, William

        Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Moate, Sir Roger

        93

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Moss, Malcolm

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Spring, Richard

        Nelson, Anthony

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Steen, Anthony

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Stephen, Michael

        Nichholson, David (Taunton)

        Stem, Michael

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Stewart, Allan

        Norris, Steve

        Streeter, Gary

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Sumberg, David

        Ottaway, Richard

        Sykes, John

        Page, Richard

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Paice, James

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Patrick, Sir Irvine

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Pawsey, James

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Thomason, Roy

        Pickles, Eric

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Thurnham, Peter

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Tracey, Richard

        Rathbone, Tim

        Tredinnck, David

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Trend, Michael

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Trotter, Neville

        Richards, Rod

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Riddick, Graham

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Viggers, Peter

        Robathan, Andrew

        Walden, George

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Waller, Gary

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Ward, John

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Waterson, Nigel

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Watts, John

        Sackville, Tom

        Wells, Bowen

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Whitney, Ray

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Whittingdale, John

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Willetts, David

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Shersby, Michael

        Wood, Timothy

        Sims, Roger

        Yeo,Tim

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Soames, Nicholas

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Mr. Sydney Chapman and

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Mr. Simon Burns

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 248.

        Divison No. 46]

        [8.36 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Atkins, Robert

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Alexander, Richard

        Baldry, Tony

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Amess, David

        Bates, Michael

        Ancram, Michael

        Batiste, Spencer

        Arbuthnot, James

        Bellingham, Henry

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Ashby, David

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        94

        Booth, Hartley

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Boswell, Tim

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Bowis, John

        Gorst, Sir John

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Brazier, Julian

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Bright, Sir Graham

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Hague, William

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Burt Alistair

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Butler, Peter

        Hannam, Sir John

        Butterfill, John

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Harris, David

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hawkins, Nick

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hawksley, Warren

        Cash, William

        Hayes, Jerry

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Heald, Oliver

        Chapman, Sydney

        Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Churchill, Mr

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Clappison, James

        Hendry, Charles

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Hicks, Robert

        Coe, Sebastian

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

        Colvin, Michael

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Congdon, David

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Conway, Derek

        Horam, John

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Couchman, James

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Currie, Mrs Edwina (SD'by'ire)

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Jack, Michael

        Day, Stephen

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Jenkin, Bemard

        Dicks, Terry

        Jessel, Toby

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Dover, Den

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Duncan, Alan

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Dunn, Bob

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Key, Robert

        Dykes, Hugh

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Elletson, Harold

        Knapman, Roger

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Knox, Sir David

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Evennett, David

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Faber, David

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Fabricant, Michael

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Legg, Barry

        Fishbum, Dudley

        Leigh, Edward

        Forman, Nigel

        Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Forth, Eric

        Lidington, David

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Lidington, David

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Lord, Michael

        French, Douglas

        Luff, Peter

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Gale, Roger

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Gardiner, Sir George

        MacKay, Andrew

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        Maclean, David

        Garnier, Edward

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        95

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Shersby, Michael

        Madel, Sir David

        Sims, Roger

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Skeet Sir Trevor

        Mans, Keith

        Smith, Sir Dudey (Warwick)

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Soames, Nicholas

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arunrdel)

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        Merchant Piers

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Mills, Iain

        Spring, Richard

        Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Steen, Anthony

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Stephen, Michael

        Moss, Malcolm

        Stephen, Michael

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Stewart, Allan

        Nelson, Anthony

        Streeter, Gary

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Sumberg, David

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Sykes, John

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Norris, Steve

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Thomason, Roy

        Ottaway, Richard

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Page, Richard

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        paice, James

        Thumham, Peter

        Patrick, Sir Irvine

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexf'yh'th)

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Tracey, Richard

        Pawsey, James

        Tredinnick, David

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Trend, Michael

        Pickles, Eric

        Trotter, Neville

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Viggers, Peter

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Walden, George

        Rathbone, Tim

        Walker, Bill (N Tayaside)

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Waller, Gary

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Ward, John

        Richards, Rod

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Riddick, Graham

        Waterson, Nigel

        Robathan, Andrew

        Watts, John

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Wells, Bowen

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Whitney, Ray

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Whittingdale, John

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Sackville, Tom

        Willetts, David

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Wolfson, Mark

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Wood, Timothy

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Yeo,Tim

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford))

        Mr. Simon Burns, and

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Mr. Andrew Mitchell,

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Benton, Joe

        Ainger, Nick

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Berry, Roger

        Allen, Graham

        Betts, Clive

        Alton, David

        Blunkett David

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Boateng, Paul

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Boyes, Roland

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Bradley, Keith

        Barnes, Harry

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Barron, Kevin

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Battle, John

        Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Burden, Richard

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Byers, Stephen

        96

        Caborn, Richard

        Heppell, John

        Callaghan.Jim

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Hinchiffe, David

        Campbell, Menzies (Fif NE)

        Hodge, Margaret

        Campbel, Ronnie (Btyth V)

        Hoey, Kate

        Campbel-Savours, D N

        Home Robertson, John

        Canavan, Dennis

        Hood, Jimmy

        Cann, Jamie

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

        Chidgey, David

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Hoyle, Doug

        Church, Judith

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Clapham, Michael

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Clelland, David

        Hutton, John

        Coffey, Ann

        Illsley, Eric

        Cohen, Harry

        Ingram, Adam

        Connarty, Michael

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Jamieson, David

        Corbett, Robin

        Janner, Greville

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Corston, Jean

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Cousins, Jim

        Jowell, Tessa

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Keen, Alan

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Khabra, Piara S

        Darling, Alistair

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Davidson, Ian

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Lewis, Terry

        Denham, John

        Liddell, Mrs Helen

        Dewar, Donald

        Litherland, Robert

        Dixon, Don

        Livingstone, Ken

        Dobson, Frank

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Donohoe, Brian H

        McAllion, John

        Dowd, Jim

        McCartney, Ian

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Macdonald, Calum

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        McFall, John

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Eastham, Ken

        Maclennan, Robert

        Enright, Derek

        McMaster, Gordon

        Etherington, Bill

        McNamara, Kevin

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        MacShane, Denis

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        McWilliam, John

        Fatchett, Derek

        Madden, Max

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Maddock, Diana

        Flynn, Paul

        Mahon, Alice

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Mandelson, Peter

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Marek, Dr. John

        Fraser, John

        Marshall, Jim

        Fyfe, Maria

        Martin, Michael

        Gallbraith, Sam

        Martlew, Eric

        Galloway, George

        Martlew, Eric

        Gapes, Mike

        Maxton, John

        George, Bruce

        Meacher, Michael

        Gerrard, Neil

        Meale, Alan

        Gillbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Michael, Alun

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Michael, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Milburn, Alan

        Gordon, Mildred

        Miller, Andrew

        Graham, Thomas

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Morley, Elliot

        Grocott, Bruce

        Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

        Gunnell, John

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Hain, Peter

        Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

        Hall, Mike

        Mudie, George

        Hanson, David

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Hardy, Peter

        O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

        Harvey, Nick

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Henderson, Doug

        O'Hara, Edward

        97

        Olner.Bill

        Spearing, Nigel

        O'Neill, Martin

        Spellar.John

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        Pearson, Ian

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Pickthall, Colin

        Stevenson, George

        Pike, Peter L

        Stott, Roger

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Strang, Dr Gavin

        Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Straw, Jack

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Purchase, Ken

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Radice, Giles

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Randall, Stuart

        Timms, Stephen

        Raynsford, Nick

        Tipping, Paddy

        Redmond, Martin

        Turner, Dennis

        Reid, Dr John

        Tyler, Paul

        Rendel, David

        Vaz, Keith

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Walker.Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Walley.Joan

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Wareing, Robert N

        Rooker, Jeff

        Watson, Mike

        Rooney, Terry

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Ruddock, Joan

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Salmond, Alex

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Wilson, Brian

        Sheerman, Barry

        Winnick, David

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Wise, Audrey

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Worthington, Tony

        Short, Clare

        Wray, Jimmy

        Simpson, Alan

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Skinner, Dennis

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford East)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

        Snape, Peter

        Mr. John Cummings

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Clause added to the Bill.
        Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      TABLE OF RATES OF DUTY ON WINE AND MADE-WINE
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 156, line 8, leave out '22.46' and insert '23.41'.
      No. 2, in line 10, leave out '40.44' and insert '42.14'.
      No. 3, in line 12, leave out '134.77' and insert '140.44'.
      No. 4, in line 15, leave out '192.53' and insert '200.64'.
      No. 5, in line 18, leave out '192.53' and insert '200.64'.
      No. 6, in line 25, leave out '19.81' and insert '20.60'.—[Mr. Bates.]
      Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 5

      RATES OF DUTY
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government new clause 3—Hydrocarbon oil rates: further provisions.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Clause 5 increases the excise duty on hydrocarbon oils by between 6.4 and 9.9 per cent. The differential between leaded and unleaded petrol has been frozen at 5.7p per litre, including VAT. The overall increase in taxation at the pump is between 2.5p and 3.2p per litre on road fuels. The duty increases came into effect, as usual, on Budget day. Duty on aviation gasoline increases automatically by 6.4 per cent., because it is set at half the leaded petrol rate.
      Gas oil used for industrial heating and power, and heavy fuel oil for industrial heating and furnaces, both increase by 0.5p per litre. The duty on road fuel gas is unchanged, but it is now expressed in pence per kilogram rather than pence per litre. Kerosene, which is used as aviation turbine fuel and for domestic heating purposes, is not charged with duty.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor also reaffirmed his support for the commitment to increase road fuel duties by an average of at least 5 per cent. in real terms per year. This sends a clear signal to manufacturers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles and a clear signal to customers to buy them. The announcement of our intentions for future increases in fuel duties will give manufacturers and customers a longer-term context in which to plan their investment decisions.
      The 5 per cent. real increases are also an important part of our strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The fuel duties policy should reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 2.5 million tonnes of carbon by 2000. This, together with other measures already announced, should enable us to meet our targets of reductions arising from the Rio agreement.
      New clause 3 raises the excise duty on road fuels by between 2.5 per cent. and 2.9 per cent. This arises from the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on 8 December and was approved by the House on 13 December. The differential between leaded and unleaded petrol has again been frozen at 5.7p a litre. The increase in taxation at the pump, including VAT, will be 1p per litre. This increase came into effect on I January 1995.
      Ms Primarolo: As a result of new clause 3—the increases in excise duty on hydrocarbons—the Chancellor has imposed an extra tax of £51 a year on a typical car owner. This is the latest rise and it means that the duty on a litre of leaded petrol has gone up by 9.8p in the three Budgets since March 1993. The increases, which represent the Tories' one-club response to the Rio environmental targets to which they signed up, are a

      99
      further blow to the many people living in rural areas—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They all seem to be sitting in the Chamber.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: And why not?
      Ms Primarolo: Indeed, why not. In the absence of a decent integrated public transport system, those living in rural areas are forced to rely on cars as their only means of transport. The increase in petrol duties is another example of the Government's hidden tax increases. In 1979, about 45 per cent. of the retail price of a gallon of petrol went in tax, excise and VAT. From January this year, 75 per cent. of the retail price will go in taxes.
      The Government have claimed that this use of only one mechanism to reach the Rio targets is acceptable. The Chancellor, however, speaking in the House on 8 December 1994, said:
      "I also propose that the duties on road fuels will rise by a further 1p per litre. I have kept these increases to a minimum to limit the burden on businesses and the rural motorist … The increases will also play a part in our strategy for curbing emissions of carbon dioxide."—[Official Report, 8 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 475.]
      Transport-related air pollution is known to affect people's health adversely. The object must be to change polluting behaviour—to reduce the number of journeys made by car. Emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles increased by 50 per cent. during the 1980s, but the use of above-inflation fuel tax increases may help only as part of a package. In itself, it is insufficient and will not satisfy the environmental targets.
      People will not be persuaded to use cars less by this mechanism, because of the absence of public transport, unless there is an efficient, reliable and affordable alternative. Everything that the Government have done in public transport has undermined that arm of public policy; that continues to be the case. Funding for local government packages for transport in 1995–96 has been cut by 8 per cent. in real terms. The cut for London is 4 per cent. in real terms and will be 37 per cent. in real terms by 1997–98. Those are not the actions of a Government who claim to pursue an environmentally friendly policy on transport. The increases must be seen not as a contribution to a strategy on the environment but as another piece of the jigsaw in which the Government seek indirect taxes to replace direct taxes. They seek to take from people through indirect taxes so that they can save up to give tax cuts, perhaps, in future.
      It is, of course, important to curb carbon dioxide emissions, but that will not be achieved simply by using this type of tax increase. People living in rural areas will be badly affected. They will find it difficult to understand why they must pay for the Government's taxes while receiving little in return in public transport. Pitching the tax and the tax rise as an environmental measure is cynical and no more convincing than the case that the Government tried to make for imposing VAT on fuel.
      This is what needs to be done. We need an urgent shift of investment away from road building and towards public transport. We need to encourage bus priority measures, and we need a network of safe cycle routes and better provision for pedestrians. We need to promote clean air technology, setting minimum standards for fuel efficiency and exhaust emissions. We need to ensure that
      100
      new developments are sited to minimise the need for the individual to rely on private motoring and an individual car. That, not the spurious case that the Government try to make tonight, which involves taking more taxes from the electorate to save their own skin now, while selling the environment of our children and the future, is the formula for dealing with the environment.
      Mr. Salmond: I endorse everything that the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), said. These are vital matters which will affect rural communities, so it is all the more surprising that the Labour Whips have sent the troops home and they will not be able to vote against the Government if Divisions are called later this evening.
      I turn to proposed new clause 3. When the Government were forced by the joint action of a variety of parties in the House to abandon the second tranche of the value added tax on fuel, they replaced one anti-Scottish measure with two anti-Scottish measures: the mini-Budget tax on whisky, which we have just debated; and the additional taxation imposed on road fuel duty, which will fall heaviest on rural communities, many of which are located in Scotland.
      In the past couple of years, Scotland has been sheltered from the Government's yearly real terms 5 per cent. increase in those duties because of the prevailing low oil prices. That has meant that the pump price of petrol and DERV has not shot up astronomically in the past two years. However, oil is a cyclical market. Western economies are experiencing a general recovery and many economists are forecasting a sharp upturn in the price of oil—certainly a stabilisation and an increase in the current levels. If a real increase of 5 per cent., which the Chancellor has forecast for the indefinite future, and the impost in the mini-bar Budget of additional VAT on fuel is added to the expected upturn in the oil price, the outlook for many rural communities is extremely serious.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in many rural communities—certainly in Wales, and, I dare say, in Scotland and in parts of England—the price of petrol is already substantially higher than in urban areas? We are seeing an additional imposition on an already burdensome level of cost, which will hit poorer people very hard indeed.
      9 pm
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is right; he anticipates the point that I was about to make. There will be an increase not just in the road fuel duty but in pump prices generally in rural areas. The increase in VAT on fuel will mean that people in rural communities will pay more tax because the fuel prices are higher. They will lose at every turn.
      The point has been made that in many rural communities the car is not a luxury, but a necessity; it is often the only form of transport available. If the Government continue to pursue them, the measures will impact on transport costs in rural communities and they will hit rural industries by pricing them out of the market. It is academic to talk about competing in a single market of almost 400 million people if rural communities in this country are effectively priced out of accessing that major market because of the huge increases in fuel duties imposed by the Government.

      101
      The hon. Lady made several suggestions for formulating a more sophisticated, sensitive and environmentally friendly policy, and I shall make a few more. Given the importance of industry to rural economies, the Government should think seriously about increasing the differential between DERV and petrol.
      If they had any imagination, the Government would think carefully about congestion pricing. Singapore intends to experiment in the near future with automatic pricing increases for people who take cars into areas of traffic congestion. One of the great ironies of imposing penalties on rural communities is that people caught in city traffic jams, with cars belching exhaust fumes, impact more on the environment than those people travelling by car in non-congested areas.
      It may be argued that the road tax should be increased for second cars. By and large, if duties must be paid, families with a second car are in a better position to pay them than those families who rely on a single car as their only available form of transport. It can certainly be argued that the adequate provision of public transport—which has been decimated in many rural areas—shouldbe argued that the adequate provision of public transport—which has been decimated in many rural areas—should be a prerequisite of any move sharply to increase petrol and DERV duties.
      As evidence of the pent-up demand for public transport, I cite the experiment that has been run in the Grampian region—it was begun by the SNP Labour-controlled council two years ago and has been continued by the SNP Liberal administration—offering a 10p bus fare. An old-age pensioner can travel in the north-east of Scotland from Dundee to Inverness for l0p. That experiment has been extraordinarily successful, and buses that were once empty are now full of people taking the opportunity to use rural public transport. The Government's measure will price people out of private transport in rural areas.
      At the beginning of my brief remarks, I said that the Government had effectively replaced one anti-Scottish tax with two anti-Scottish taxes. Given that my colleagues and I have already voted against the general taxation measure in the Budget debate proper, given the opportunity this evening we will certainly divide against the Government's proposed new clause 3. I hope that on this occasion the other Opposition parties will join us in the Lobby.
      Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) rightly said that the way to deal with CO2 emissions is to develop public transport, but new clause 3 will further punish public transport because of the increase that it will make in diesel fuel. That was not highlighted in previous debates. That percentage increase is far higher than the 5 per cent. that the Chancellor highlighted as official policy, because of the freezing of fuel rebate in last year's Budget.
      Until November 1993, local bus companies paid about 10p per litre of fuel. When the rebate was frozen last year, that amount was added to their costs. There was an increase of nearly 3p after last year's Budget, and after the two Budgets this fiscal year, users will have to pay an additional 3.62p. A local bus company will, in effect, face a 60 per cent. increase in fuel costs as a result of new clause 3. We must highlight the effect that that will have on public transport costs.
      102
      My local bus company, Lothian Regional Transport, said that the increases would add £600,000 to its costs in the forthcoming year, which is 1 per cent. on its total overheads. There were similar increases last year, although they were cushioned to some extent because oil prices were static and declined for part of the year. I am told that the reverse is likely in the forthcoming year because of the rise in the value of the dollar.
      Bus companies will begin to feel the effects of the increased tax and the freezing of the rebate in the course of the next year. It is an anti-environment tax in respect of bus companies. The consequence will be higher fares and fewer people using public transport. That is usually the case when fares increase.
      The Government presented last year's rebate freeze as a green measure, but that is typical of the hypocrisy that we saw when they introduced VAT on domestic fuel. The Government argued that buses would be forced to use more fuel-efficient engines if diesel became more expensive. The reality is that cutting emissions often means less fuel efficiency and more diesel being used.
      Mr. Salmond: Is not one effect of Government policies, which is evident to any driver, that they result in a large number of older buses in use because of lack of investment?
      Mr. Chisholm: I was about to make that point. Higher fuel costs mean less money available for investment. Since deregulation, there have been many more older buses on the road. We are seeing another example of the Government not thinking seriously about the environment. It is time Government Departments started paying attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. If they did, they would start fully rebating amounts spent by bus companies on fuel. Because the Government are not doing that, I totally oppose the increase in duty on bus fuel.
      Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend said that the Government are imposing an anti-environment tax. I endorse also the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) that it is a ferociously anti-rural tax. The Government and the Paymaster General, who represents a rural constituency, ought to explain the reasons for their action.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said that this measure will involve an extra tax take of £51 from every car owner in Britain. I suspect that my rural constituents will pay much more because they must travel greater distances and use more fuel. All the goods and services that they purchase are also subject to the tax. The tax certainly discriminates heavily against people living in rural areas.
      Sometimes, people have no choice in this matter. Last week, I received a letter from a constituent who, until recently, used the railway service to commute to work in Edinburgh. Because of the lack of investment in that service, however, it has become so unreliable that she now finds it necessary to travel by road. Other Government policies are pushing more and more people on to the roads, and now the Government are taxing them for something that they did not want to do in the first place.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South said, the measure has been dressed up as something to do with the Rio environmental objectives. Clearly, that is bogus. If there is one group of motorists who do not significantly

      103
      contribute to carbon dioxide pollution, it is rural motorists. The pollution of the environment caused by people driving around the highlands of Scotland, rural Wales or the south-west of England is hardly an important factor in atmospheric pollution. Far more important is the pollution generated by—largely stationary—vehicles in traffic jams in urban Britain. If, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and other hon. Members have suggested, the Government dealt with that problem, I am sure that the House of Commons would support them.
      I hope that the Minister's constituents in Wells are aware of what he is doing. This is a ferociously anti-rural tax, and the Government should not be allowed to get away with it.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have listened carefully to this debate and to the opposition to the proposal from Opposition parties. Those same Opposition Members have in the past supported the idea of increasing taxes on environmentally unfriendly products—there are plenty of quotes on file to support that contention. Once a lobby group is assembled to complain about a particular increase in duty on environmentally unfriendly products, however, they cave in and vote against it. In fact, I am not sure whether they will tonight. We shall see who—and how many of them—votes against the measure.
      The fact is that 20 per cent. of carbon emissions in the United Kingdom come from road transport, and a large increase in emissions is forecast by the end of the century; so transport must contribute to any strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Under the Rio convention, we agreed to reduce our emissions by the year 2000. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) is wrong to say that this is our only policy to achieve that end. The increase in road fuel duty contributes to only a quarter of the carbon dioxide reductions that we are planning. There are plenty of other measures in place which will deliver the bulk of our commitment.
      Of course I recognise the position of those living in rural areas. As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) reminded the Committee, I represent a rural constituency and I am alert to its interests. I know that a car is often a necessity, but all motorists must think about the environmental consequences of what they do. We have ensured in other ways that the cost of motoring is kept down whenever possible—
      Mr. Salmond: As the Minister has recognised the interests of his own constituents, may I ask him whether the Government have made any study of the differential effect of their policy of blanket increases on rural motorists and rural incomes? Have they made any study of the impact on rural industries of the road—pardon the pun—down which they are travelling? Were any studies done before the policy was put in place? Do the Government know the implications for rural communities of the policies that they are imposing on them?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, a well-known study of the pricing of petrol and of petrol products throughout the United Kingdom has been done. The hon. Gentleman will concede that petrol and fuel costs are but one component in the budgets of those who live in rural areas. Plenty of other things are cheaper in rural areas—certainly in
      104
      Scotland, where housing costs are generally lower than they are in my constituency. I am not asking for the Government to intervene to try to correct that imbalance; it would be impossible for the Government to lay down by some prescriptive formula what petrol and fuel companies should charge in various parts of the country. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman advances that proposition. Why should such an approach be limited to fuel costs? Why should it not apply also to every item on which our constituents spend their money? I accept that some things are more expensive in rural areas. Some things are more expensive in urban areas. That is the interplay of a market and the inheritance of the past.
      Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has already spoken.
      9.15 pm
      Dr. Godman: Will the Minister confirm that such increases in the price of fuel oil have nothing to do with the oil used by fishing vessels to power those vessels?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If I am wrong, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, but my understanding is not. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give a definitive answer from the Dispatch Box. The structure of fuel duties is complicated. In my opening remarks, I referred to vehicle fuels and to heavier fuels, some of which are taxed more lightly and some of which are not taxed at all.
      I shall pursue the argument about the overall cost of motoring. I remind the Committee that the abolition of car tax by the Government has made cars somewhat cheaper. That, in turn, has filtered through to the second-hand market. Although we see increases in the price of petrol, petrol is still cheaper in real terms than it was a decade ago. It is certainly cheaper here than in most other European Community countries.
      We have resisted calls from some quarters for the doubling of duties on transport fuels. Such calls occasionally crop up from various environmental groups and others, which seek the abolition of vehicle excise duty and a transfer to fuel tax. That is attractive to some. It would equate costs more closely with usage. Precisely for the reason that it would disproportionately damage and hit the rural motorist, we have resisted that approach. For all the reasons to which I have referred, I must ask the Committee to accept the clause in its original form.
      The Chairman: For the convenience of the Committee, I shall put the Question on the new clause after the Question on clause stand part.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 3

      HYDROCARBON OIL RATES: FURTHER PROVISIONS
      '.—(1) In section 6(1) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, as amended by section 5 above, for "£0.3526" (duty on light oil) and "£0.3044" (duty on heavy oil) there shall be substituted "£0.3614" and "£0.3132" respectively.

      105

      (2) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st January 1995.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amoty]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      The Chairman: We now come to clause 8 stand part, with which we shall take new clause 4.
      Mr. Salmond: Have you overlooked new clause 3, Mr. Morris?
      The Chairman: I have already put the Question on new clause 3 clearly. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was paying full attention. The Clerk read out the title of the new clause.

    Clause 8

      RATES OF DUTY
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 4—Tobacco rates: further provisions.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The clause raises the duty on tobacco by between 5 and 6.4 per cent. It adds 10p to the price of a packet of cigarettes, including VAT. It fulfils a commitment given in the previous Budget to raise tobacco taxes by at least 3 per cent. in real terms. That is for revenue purposes and health reasons, since evidence shows that price is an important factor in persuading people to give up smoking. The increase came into effect from 6 pm on Budget day.
      New clause 4 increases tobacco duties by 3.7 per cent., other than for hand-rolling tobacco. The sole reason for that increase is that it will recoup some of the revenue lost by dropping the second stage of VAT on domestic fuel and power.
      The increase will yield £205 million in 1995–96, and will increase the cost of a packet of cigarettes by 6p, including VAT.
      Ms Primarolo: In new clause 4, the Government propose a 4 per cent. increase in tobacco duties, which will mean an extra 6p on the price of a packet of cigarettes, on top of the 1 Op increase announced In the main Budget.
      While the Opposition accept that increasing duties is one way to reduce smoking, we cannot close our minds to the distributional effect, especially as the increase will hit low-income earners hardest, as they smoke most. A recent analysis by the Policy Studies Institute concluded:
      "Smoking is greatest among the most disadvantaged families: nearly three quarters of council tenants receiving means-tested benefits smoke, spending £16 a week or £1 in every £7 of their net disposable incomes. The children of poor families who smoke are three times more likely to be going without essential items than the children of similar poor families who do not smoke."
      For that reason, a ban on tobacco advertising is the most effective educational and preventive measure and a crucial aspect of any anti-smoking campaign.
      This evening, the Minister tried to hide behind a health priority to justify the increase in tax. Smoking-related diseases account for about 110,000 premature or avoidable deaths a year. It is estimated that 50 million
      106
      working days are lost annually through smoking. Recent evidence shows that about one non-smoker a day dies as a consequence of inhaling other people's tobacco smoke.
      During the Second Reading debate on the Tobacco Advertising Bill, the then Minister for Health said:
      "We are taking action on price because we know that there is a good, solid evidence that price influences consumption."—[Official Report, 11 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 611.]
      As they did during the debate on alcohol, the Government completely close their eyes to the implications of their tobacco taxation policy and the way in which it will provide opportunities for tobacco smuggling. Smuggling not only undermines the industry here, and therefore will eventually weaken what tax base there is, but undermines the Government's health policy, because the contraband goods are unregulated and available to the very groups for whom the Government's health policy, "The Health of the Nation", sets targets to reduce smoking—the 11 to 15-year-old age range.
      By pursuing the tobacco industry, through taxation, the Government are undermining that. We have made clear our views on the health aspects, on curtailing smoking and encouraging people not to smoke, but taxation is not the way to do that.
      Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend will recall that the Minister suggested that an increase in tobacco tax led to a reduction in the consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco-related products. Is it the older smoker who is deterred by such increases or the younger, newer smoker?
      Ms Primarolo: There is not sufficient detailed evidence available on that subject. Clearly, what my hon. Friend calls the older smoker may be deterred by the increase in taxation. Our concern is also to prevent young people starting to smoke in the first place. The problem is that, because of the Government's taxation policy, smuggled tobacco goods are being sucked into the country, undermining the industry and, through the sales networks, providing access to smoking for young people.
      Other countries have experienced similar effects. I shall use the example of Canada especially, which sought to use simply taxation on tobacco products as its method of introducing and policing a health policy to encourage people not to smoke. Two things happened. First, there was massive importation across the United States border into Canada and, secondly, Canadian-produced cigarettes were exported to the US and smuggled back in and sold. It undermined the health policy and proved to be totally ineffective. In the end, the Canadian Government had to reassess their position on imposing high taxation on tobacco products.
      In this country, apart from the smuggling, mail order cigarette companies are emerging. I should correct myself. They are not cigarette companies, they are sellers of tobacco products through mail order, which thereby avoid taxation and undercut the existing industry. As yet, the Government have not come up with any proposals to deal with that. Several other problems are being experienced too, such as the smuggling of huge quantities of hand-rolling tobacco, especially the product Drum. Of all detected smuggling, 67 per cent. is of tobacco.
      The industry itself has produced substantial and convincing arguments. I say that as a committed anti-smoker. The information provided by the tobacco industry shows only too clearly the disastrous route down

      107
      which the Government's taxation policy is taking us. We will lose control of tax. We will lose control, through tobacco products, of our health policy and we will undermine considerably the country's industry.
      We always return to the same arguments. There is no proper commitment, through the Government's policy on Customs and Excise, to preventing illegal importing of products. There is no clear commitment to balancing a health policy of taxation, education and banning of advertising as a way in which to pursue our health needs. The Government's taxation policy will undermine their own woefully inadequate health policy, which demonstrates clearly, yet again, that the Government have a series of Departments contradicting and working against each other, rather than collaborating and taking the country forward.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I cannot go down the same road as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). Hon. Members are well aware that Labour Front-Bench Members have in their sights punitive levels of taxation on tobacco. They have always wanted higher taxation than the Government have ever proposed, including the measures in the current Budget; 10p and 6p is not as much as Labour would like to see and the industry is aware of that. The 600 people in my constituency who work for Gallaher Tobacco in Northolt are aware of that—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Member for Bristol, South trying to interrupt me from a sedentary position.
      My constituents are aware that the Labour party is completely illiberal in the sector that I have described. Labour Members do not accept people's right to choose whether to smoke. We are a responsible society. I am not a smoker, but I defend the right to choose.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South and her Opposition Front-Bench colleagues might care to reflect that, whether we like it or not, some people are comforted by smoking. To hide behind the smokescreen of a call for a ban on tobacco advertising is the most obviously crude tactic that I have seen. It will not convince anyone. The hon. Member for Bristol, South should be ashamed of what she said.
      9.30 pm
      Dr. Godman: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to defend the interests of his 600 constituents who are employed in the industry. However, how would he campaign for a dramatic reduction in the consumption of cigarettes and other related products?
      Mr. Greenway: Certainly not in the way that the Labour party is campaigning for it. As a result of Labour's pressure, cigarettes are being imported from such countries as France and Germany. That is undermining the sales of companies in this country and it led a few weeks ago to the loss of 209 jobs in my constituency. Those jobs have been exported to France and Germany. It is not that people are smoking less, it is that they are smoking differently. Our people are losing their jobs and Labour Members think that that is clever. They should think again.
      My constituents and others who work in the industry are good, honest and honourable people. They are not pleased—I am not pleased—with the double whammy
      108
      that they have received in the Budget—[Interruption.] The Labour party has aided and abetted such a policy for many years and it continues to do that. People in my constituency and elsewhere will not be deceived by the hypocrisy that we have heard this evening from the hon. Member for Bristol, South.
      In 1995, the United Kingdom tobacco industry will lose sales to the continent as a result of high UK tobacco taxes. Excise duties on the continent are markedly lower. The United Kingdom is at a serious competitive disadvantage and the Government are losing revenue. Since 1993, there has been a significant increase in the level of legal, and more noticeably illegal, cross-border shopping for tobacco products. That must be noted.
      The Chancellor's decision to increase tobacco duties twice in a fortnight—in his 1994 Budget and subsequent mini-Budget—has significantly widened the tax-induced price differentials between UK tobacco products and their European Union equivalents. That policy will exacerbate the problems caused by legal and illegal cross—border tobacco trading in 1995.
      The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, in its cross-border shopping inquiry last year, and the Government, have acknowledged that cross-border trading for tobacco, particularly for hand-rolling tobacco, is a major cause for concern. The United Kingdom tax burdens on tobacco are among the highest in the European Union. United Kingdom tax on hand-rolling tobacco—HRT—is the highest in the European Union while UK tax on cigarettes is the second highest.
      Tax levels are the prime determinant of price and the tax incidence on UK cigarettes is more than 76 per cent. of the retail price. Large savings can be made by shoppers travelling to low-tax European Union countries and stocking up on duty-paid tobacco goods, particularly cigarettes and HRT. Opportunities for bargains have attracted shoppers for the savings and bootleggers for the profits.
      The latest official estimates of revenue loss from tobacco goods—[Interruption.] My constituents will note that the hon. Member for Bristol, South and Opposition Front-Bench Members are laughing. They think that it is funny, but my constituents are not amused. The latest official estimates of revenue loss from tobacco goods, relating to 1993, totalled £120 million. That comprised £100 million from shopping and £20 million from bootlegging, no less, based on an assumed 5 per cent. detection rate. Revenue losses from tobacco bootlegging were about 65 per cent. of the total revenue loss on all excise goods.
      Industry data and market research demonstrate a steady growth in personal cross-border shopping. More significantly, there appears to be a rapid and worrying increase in smuggling or bootlegging, particularly for HRT. Evidence suggests that detection rates could be as low as only 1 per cent. for bootlegged goods. The retail value of United Kingdom sales losses on tobacco goods to continental companies is estimated to be £375 million in 1994. Revenue losses on tobacco have therefore been badly underestimated by Her Majesty's Government and could be as much as £275 million a year, comprising legal shopping at £100 million and bootlegging at £175 million.
      It is now believed that more than 25 per cent. of the HRT market is sourced from the continent. Twelve per cent. of HRT smokers in the United Kingdom now say that Drum, which has been mentioned and which, for

      109
      trademark reasons, is not sold in the United Kingdom, is the brand that they smoke most often. A further 6 per cent. smoke Drum regularly. A great many cross-channel van traders are now buying HRT because of its profitability, in addition to beer. Also, 67 per cent.. of all seizures by Customs in the 12 months to June 1994 were made up of tobacco products. HRT alone accounted for more than half of all seizures.
      There is a wide discrepancy between a reduction in United Kingdom retail sales of HRT and an increase in sales of cigarette rolling papers. In fact, the HRT market may even be growing, despite official statistics showing a rapid fall in sales. Unless the Government moderate their tobacco excise policy, the significant growth in HRT cross-border trading will trigger similar activity for cigarettes, with associated serious social consequences from criminal activity.
      Tobacco revenue accounts for 12 per cent. of all Government taxes on consumer goods. Any reduction in that revenue would have serious implications for the Treasury, which is already facing losses on cross-border trading. [Interruption.] We do not need the Opposition chorus to support the brief to which I am referring. I just wish that they actually believed in what I have been saying and supported it, but they do not. We know that, and the industry knows that. The 209 people in Northolt in my constituency whom I mentioned know that, in this matter, the Labour party is their bitter enemy, and so do I.
      Mr. Michael J. Martin: When I first came to the House, 3,000 tobacco industry employees worked in Springburn. Only a few weeks ago, Gallaghers announced that the last 50 employees have left my constituency. It is interesting to note that my native city of Glasgow made its name during the industrial revolution. The tobacco lords, who made their money from the tobacco industry, were able to finance the industrial revolution in Glasgow. In a sense, Glasgow was made because of the tobacco industry.
      This debate highlights the tobacco industry, but the Government could hammer another industry with tax tomorrow. I do not know how many people have been employed in the tobacco industry since the Government came to office. There must have been many thousands of employees, but the number is dwindling every day.
      When the Government took over in 1979, I heard a lot about the Luddite attitude of workers. The Government could never say that about the workers in the tobacco industry. Tobacco firm owners— even the notorious Hanson— would be able to say that not one worker in the tobacco industry ever turned his back on the new technology that played a big part in those workers losing their jobs.
      It is to the credit of the tobacco employers and the trade union movement that they were able to negotiate for the workers excellent wages and conditions and retirement for workers in their early 50s. The industry set an example in equal pay; in fact, there was equal pay in the industry before the Trades Union Congress and other wings of the trade union movement had begun their campaign for equal pay. Those who visited tobacco factories saw that the workers enjoyed excellent cafeteria facilities, pensions and other fringe benefits.
      110
      No one can defend the effects of tobacco on health. Anyone who has met a person suffering from emphysema or bronchitis must say that we should never have had cigarettes. If only we could have stopped cigarettes, we might have helped prevent the terrible lung cancer which— while I am not a medical man— I understand is a form of cancer that cannot be cured. No one can defend the health situation and if it means putting up taxation to stop someone smoking, I am all for that.
      My hon. Friends mentioned that the smuggling that is going on across the channel has been helped because the Government have taken it upon themselves to sack Customs and Excise officers. Customs and Excise was a dedicated service, and it was considered to be a highly professional service in which a person could get a career, but morale now is terrible.
      If people can smuggle tobacco across the channel, it must be the case that cocaine and heroin can also be smuggled. If the Government are getting more money from people who smoke, they should be reinforcing customs facilities, rather than breaking them down.
      There are housing estates in poor areas—it always seems to be poor areas that are hit—where people turn to alcohol and tobacco because of despair. Many of the early socialists were teetotal or in favour of prohibition because they saw the terrible effect that alcohol and tobacco could have on ordinary working men and women. In those housing estates, the people who are smuggling beer are selling it from the back of a van and saying as an incentive that if a person buys two dozen cans of beer, he will get a free pack of hand-rolling tobacco. The people smuggling beer are also smuggling tobacco.
      If anything can be learned from the tobacco industry, it is that the Government have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. They have destroyed the work force, but not the employers. Hanson will never be out of a job, but he went into the W.D. and H.O. Wills factory in my constituency and took every job there. That was a factory where people had worked loyally for generations, and they had built up the industry. He took away the tradition that the tobacco owners—the Mitchells and the Gallaghers—had. They had a reputation for doing good in the community.
      The Mitchells built the Mitchell library in Glasgow. Gallaghers did a great deal, particularly during the troubles in Northern Ireland, to try to break down the sectarian problems, when it used its finance. But Hanson did not. He came into a factory, a list B building of special design and architecture, sacked the work force and moved the machinery down to Bristol. Then he had the brass neck to send some of his minions to see the local Member of Parliament—me—who said, "We would like to develop this building into a lovely office block, take away the offices from the centre of Glasgow and bring them into our new office block." I told them—I will not use the language here—where to go.
      People such as Hanson and many others make such a lot of money. They can diversify, but the work force in Glasgow cannot. They cannot go into other industries. When I spoke to the tobacco owners, I said, "If you get into insurance, potato crisps or restaurants"—or many of the other things that the tobacco industry does—"take some of the new services in which you are investing and put them where you made your money: in Glasgow, Nottingham, Bristol and Liverpool." They would not do that.

      111
      9.45 pm
      Therefore, my constituents feel bitter about some of the tobacco owners, but not Gallahers, which has been decent. Okay, there must be redundancies. We accept that the tobacco industry has had a difficult time, but keep putting up the taxes on it and we shall not be able to tax producers who are in Italy, France, Germany or even further afield, because the tobacco will be smuggled in. This country will have no tobacco industry. I know that the health people will say three cheers, but if Britain does not have a tobacco industry, that does not mean that we shall lose the health problems, because they will be brought in from somewhere else. We must tackle the problem through education and other things.
      I despair that if the Paymaster General can do that to an industry in which the work force did not turn its back on new technology, were loyal and had excellent industrial relations, he can start on another industry and give it the same problems that he gave the tobacco industry.
      Mr. Peter Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Paymaster General commended the measures to us tonight, I felt, without great enthusiasm. In his comments, he did not seek to analyse their likely fiscal effect. Rather, he made a simple statement that the Government needed more money because they do not have the tax on domestic fuel. He went on to say that there is a powerful health lobby outside, which would applaud what we are doing today. That is not a reason to develop the Budget of the nation.
      Those arguments will probably carry the day. I do not know whether we will accept the measures, but I assume that we probably will. I ask my hon. Friend to give thought to what he is doing tonight. He may simply be speaking on behalf of others, but what he is doing is very serious. I do not wish to repeat what has been said, but mention has been made of employment, and if we simply buy tobacco that is processed overseas, we lose jobs in our tobacco industry. That cannot be to the advantage of our economy.
      An important sector, although it has not been mentioned, is the retail tobacconists—the wholesalers, too, but the retailers in particular—very few of whom nowadays are the specialists they were in my youth. Nowadays, they are often part of a local social service that provides a range of products, sold during long hours throughout the day, of which tobacco profits are an essential factor. If those shops close, not only will the Government lose revenue, but local people will lose services. Surely that cannot be to the benefit of the economy, which is what the Budget should be about.
      My hon. Friend the Minister prayed in aid the health factor. I was a teacher for 30 years. I do not smoke cigarettes and strongly believe that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said, it would be wonderful if tobacco smoking had never been invented. But it has and millions of people in this country smoke, either by choice or because they are addicted. The measures that my hon. Friend the Minister has proposed will not protect their health, which can be dealt with only by a process of education. What is happening goes against all the principles of educating young people. Many young
      112
      people smoke not because they like the taste of tobacco or are addicted to nicotine, but because they think that it makes them appear grown up and sophisticated and because smoking is not approved of by older people.
      The taxation of tobacco products has reached the point where it is creating a massive flow of smuggled tobacco. I represent a south coast port, so I know about that problem. As far as we know, only 1 per cent. of the smuggled tobacco is being stopped and 99 per cent. is getting through. How else do we explain the fact that most tobacconists sell very little hand-rolling tobacco compared with five years ago, but 20 per cent. more tobacco papers? The Minister must deal carefully with that question between now and the next Budget, and ask whether his proposal assists the health education programme of other Departments.
      I accept that the Government need money, but adding an excitement factor to smoking by making young people feel that they are getting hold of contraband goods makes smoking even more exciting. That is directly opposed to every part of health education.
      The bulk of tobacco that enters the country carries no health warning. Packets from overseas carry health warnings in foreign languages, and youngsters cannot necessarily understand them.
      So this is not a health measure and it is not right for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that it is about health. It is intended to raise money, which is the Budget's purpose. I am prepared to accept that it is necessary for the Government to receive revenue, but we have now reached the position where marginal increases in the price of tobacco do not bring in proportionate increases in revenue. That is why, in his opening speech, my hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that he was making different arrangements for hand-rolling tobacco and cigarettes. He must recognise the effect that such measures have on the marketplace and realise that the great feature of this Budget was the public revolt against what was seen as an unfair tax. Tobacco smokers are unlikely to rise up against the tax, as old-age pensioners did against VAT on fuel. But they have a sense of what is fair and decent. There are millions of them and they have votes. They will remember whether they were treated unfairly.
      I suggest that, in the next Budget, the Government carefully consider a reasonable and fair tobacco regime that is geared to persuading our colleagues on the other side of the channel to raise their taxes on tobacco, so that there is more equality to get rid of the smuggling that now takes place. My hon. Friend the Minister would then be able to tell the House that he would be able to collect his revenue. He would also be able to tell us, and look us in the eye as he did, that he was working in the interests of public health.
      Dr. Godman: I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions about new clause 4, to which I give a guarded welcome. I say "guarded" because I believe that the tax increase on tobacco products should have been much higher. I say that as someone who began smoking at the age of 12 and who, over time, became a 40-a-day man. I now speak as a convert. Just a few weeks ago, I was in the company of a young couple with a two-year-old son. I was horrified when those otherwise mature, sensible youngsters smoked in the company of their tiny son. I thought that that was disgraceful and told them so.

      113
      Can the Minister estimate—(Interruption.] I hope to ask him a couple of questions when he stops chatting to the Government Whip.
      Mr. John Carlisle: Get on with it.
      Dr. Godman: I shall get on with it for quite some time if I am pushed.
      Is the Minister able to estimate the reduction in the number of smokers that results from an increase in the tax on tobacco products? Can he estimate what proportion of the tax increases will be used to invest in and support health education programmes designed specifically to dissuade youngsters from smoking cigarettes?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The policy of the official Opposition is now apparently to resist tobacco duty increases—a reversal of their previous position. They now intend to rely, almost entirely, on supporting a total ban on tobacco advertising.
      We should think long and hard before the House does something as illiberal as statutorily banning something that is legally on sale. The Government have, instead, pursued voluntary controls. A number of moves have recently been made to reduce the permitted level of outdoor advertising and to improve the size and impact of health warnings.
      If anyone thinks that statutory controls are the answer, perhaps he could explain why the United Kingdom has a better record than Norway and Finland in reducing smoking in the very period since those countries introduced a statutory ban on advertising. The two European Community countries with the best record in reducing smoking—ourselves and the Netherlands—both operate voluntary controls on advertising.
      Price rises are an effective way in which to reduce consumption when they are combined with voluntary controls on advertising. Since we took office in 1979, the consumption of tobacco has fallen by about 38 per cent.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that we need take no lectures from the Labour party, which is no friend of the tobacco industry and which, until about an hour ago, has consistently, year by year, supported higher taxes on tobacco products. I take seriously the arguments about smuggling, particularly those put by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and for Ealing, North. That is why we exempted hand-rolling tobacco from the secondary tax increase, which was necessitated by the decision of the House not to proceed with 17.5 per cent. VAT on domestic fuel and power.
      To answer the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), I can assure the House that the fundamental review of Customs and Excise and staffing levels in customs have not and will not affect the number of excise verification officers, who are deployed to counter smuggling. We are determined to take vigorous action against smoking, and nothing that we do in Customs will put those staffing levels at risk. Indeed, there has recently been a modest redeployment and enhancement of the number of such officers on duty, especially at the main port concerned, that of Dover.
      Cross-border shopping is a feature that is a natural consequence of the single market, but it has not overwhelmed the legitimate trade. We know that from the duty take. The amount of excise duty that we receive from
      114
      that sector has not been significantly affected by the advent of the single market. However, I shall examine and dwell on the other arguments made, especially by my hon. Friends, about the cross-border shopping and smuggling issue.
      If I may, I shall write to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the final two questions that he asked.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 4

      TOBACCO RATES: FURTHER PROVISIONS
      '.—(1) For the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979, as substituted by section 8 above, there shall be substituted—

      Table

      1. Cigarettes

      An amount equal to 20 per cent. of the retail price plus £57.64 per thousand cigarettes.

      2. Cigars

      £85.61 per kilogram.

      3. Hand-rolling tobacco

      £85.94 per kilogram.

      4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

      £37.64 per kilogram."

      (2) This section shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st January 1995.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Committee report progress: to sit again tomorrow.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order 94H(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet:

1. on Wednesday 8th February at half-past Ten o'clock to take Questions for oral answer and to consider a substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the Committee;

2. in the Edinburgh City Chambers on Monday 13th February at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the Committee;

3. on Wednesday 1st March at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the Committee.—[Mr. Liam Fox.]

Question agreed to.

Private Clegg
10.2 pm
Dr. Robert Spink: I have a petition to free Private Lee Clegg, a soldier whose
"strength, dignity and composure are awesome",
to quote the Daily Mail of today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on his support for his constituent, but this most important petition has national implications. It was led by Councillor Peggy Grant, the mayor of Castle Point, and signed by a nominal 100 people in Castle Point, but it could easily have been signed by 1 million patriotic British citizens.

115
The signatures are essentially a sample of the congregation of St. Mary the Virgin church, Benfleet, and the petition was organised this weekend by Father Michael Galloway and his wife, Carol, who have a specific interest. My constituents believe that the new forensic evidence should be considered and the yellow card embodied in the law. The material allegations are:
That we, the undersigned, are deeply concerned by the imprisonment of Private Lee Clegg of the Parachute Regiment and vigorously protest that he should be freed. The Government place a duty upon people in the Armed Services and Police to protect society and train and arm them to carry out this responsibility and set out rules by which they must operate. Sometimes, as in the case of Private Clegg, these people are young men who must make an almost instant decision. We do not believe that Private Clegg was a wilful murderer, but that he took what his training and experience and rules of engagement led him to believe, in a split-second decision, was appropriate action. At worst we believe that Private Clegg may have been guilty of misjudgment. The Armed Services and Police must be confident that, in such circumstances, the Government will take all possible action to protect those individuals whom it places in dangerous situations, to protect society.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the right hon. John Major MP, Prime Minister, to seek the early release of Private Lee Clegg from prison and to seek a change in the law as foreshadowed in Lord Lloyd of Berwick's judgment in this case and to secure Private Clegg's pardon.
To lie upon the Table.

Traffic (Bedford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
10.4 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet: I am grateful to the Minister for coming to listen to the debate, which is very important for my constituents in Bedford. Greater Bedford comprises 134,000 people and the figure is expected to grow to 150,000 by the end of the century. Bedford has traffic problems beyond belief and it is not surprising that the transport element affects employment prospects in the north of the county.
The town has had the problem for decades. Due to stupidity, disagreement over an acceptable route and lack of funds, completion of a satisfactory bypass has been prevented. Bedfordshire, Hastings, Wigan, Gateshead and Carlisle, have the distinction of accommodating populations of roughly the same size without bypass relief.
There is now under construction the southern route from the A428 east of Bedford to a point near Elstow, where the traffic to and from eastern ports may link with the A421, which joins the MI at junction 13. That is a welcome development and I congratulate the Government on contributing the money to it. It is, however, only part of the mosaic necessary to complete an effective bypass of the town. Currently, major routes such as the A428 and A6 pass through the centre of Bedford, causing maximum disruption.
Due to years of frustration caused by Government and local authority differences, a campaign has been initiated by local industrialists and public authorities, supported by the media, to persuade the Government to face reality and to give priority rating to the bypassing of the town. A substantial pamphlet, entitled "Get Bedford Moving", has already been produced and a petition supported by 15,000 constituents is ready for presentation. We have had the opportunity of having a word on the matters involved with the Minister, who has been most patient.
The reasons for the campaign are obvious. They are to improve employment by making it possible for existing firms to expand in the town and by attracting new investment into the local economy. Other reasons are to benefit the town centre environment by reducing the appalling traffic congestion which is a daily occurrence, to unfold the amenity of the riverside, to enhance road safety, especially for pedestrian shopping in the area, to strengthen the quality of life for those who live in Bedford and the adjoining areas, to lace together the several parts of the town which have been cut in two by the River Ouse, and thus balance the local road network, and to reduce the load on the three bridges across the river, which are already overstretched.
Current traffic conditions in Bedford are notoriously bad. Serious blockages occur on the A6 and in St. Johns street, south of the river, and also at Union street in the north. Other hazardous locations are in Goldington road and on the A428 at a variety of other spots. Nationally, the British chambers of commerce calculate that road congestion is costing small companies more than £6 billion per year.
The traffic cauldron in Bedford is a reality which must be recognised. Some 150,000 vehicles travel into the town centre daily, one quarter of them passing through to other

117
destinations. Of the lorries entering Bedford, at least 50 per cent. pass through. The problem has been exacerbated by the growth in the size of heavy goods vehicles, making it difficult for them to negotiate bends within the town. Traffic is expected to increase by between 90 per cent. and 150 per cent. by the year 2025. That is not surprising, as Bedford is located within reach of two major universities—Oxford andl Cambridge—and is sited near the A14, which is the vital highway to eastern ports. With the growth of new developments in Milton Keynes and Northampton, the volume of vehicle traffic must remain on an upward curve. Birmingham lies 50 miles to the north and London a similar distance to the south.
With Bedford's key location, it is not surprising that car ownership in the town is above the national average and that commuting by Bedford residents to outside areas has increased substantially from 9,000 in 1971 to 14,000 in 1991. The rate of change is apparent from the statistics and it is up to local administrators and the Department of Transport to appreciate the extent and direction of growth so that complete paralysis of vehicle movement can be avoided before developments are overtaken by events.
There is evidence that some firms have left Bedford because of the absence of transport infrastructure and that others are worried by the increased costs involved in dealing with local traffic congestion. Wincanton Distribution gave as a reason for its move to Huntingdon the fact that Huntingdon had a much better transport system and was proximate to the national distribution network.
A 1994 Bedford college survey of 350 local firms found that 20 per cent. of the firms surveyed had considered moving as a result of traffic congestion, 17 per cent. were likely to relocate within three years for the same reason and 13 per cent. had cancelled expansion plans. They are rather surprising findings, but it is apparent to me—as it must be to the Minister—that Bedford is in a straitjacket. I sincerely hope that the Government will help to ease the problem relatively quickly.
Bedfordshire county council is experiencing difficulty recruiting new firms since mobility of operations is one of the leading criteria that they consider before reaching a decision. Bedford has to compete with industry in other counties. Both Milton Keynes and Northampton have new town status and are therefore able to mobilise funds more easily to provide grants to inveigle firms to locate in their areas. That option is not available to Bedford.
In 1994 I attended a lunch at the Hyde Park hotel arranged by the Automobile Association at which a Transport Minister was the guest speaker. He announced that the Government and the Treasury would look favourably on any application in which the private sector was minded to make a significant contribution to major road works. That was the key to a scheme being advanced to enhance priority ratings, thus allowing completion of proposals at a date earlier than had been envisaged.
To complete a major part of the link in the bypass chain around Bedford, three local enterprises have agreed to contribute a substantial part of the cost: Bovis, the construction company; Bedfordia, part of a local conglomerate farm and property developer; and Bedfordshire county council. In view of that, Bedford has subscribed to the conditions laid down by the Minister and I sincerely trust that the upgrading of the route will flow from that sequence of events. Can my hon. Friend
118
the Minister give an assurance today that he will take into account what I have said and tell the relevant Minister and the Treasury that we have fulfilled our part and that we await a return?
It was recently argued in the report of the standing committee on trunk road assessment that the building of roads would spread the congestion of traffic. That proposition does not apply to Bedford, which aims to get rid of bottlenecks which have blighted the town for years and have been exacerbated by the increase in traffic from both within and outside the county.
Bedford requires completion of essential bypasses and improved links with the M1 and with the A 1 and A 14 routes to eastern ports. That Bedfordians earnestly desire that is evidenced partly by their persistence over the years and partly by the petition that will be presented to the House in due course. Bypassing is essential to solving Bedford's traffic problems, and that means completing the several parts of the bypass rather than deferring them.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister say what volume of traffic the Department expects to be carried on the A 14 and A45 to and from eastern ports, and by how much the Department estimates that the number of vehicles using the A6 and A48 will be reduced as a consequence? To what extent has the Department assessed the difficulties created for Bedford by the increased flow of vehicles across too few bridges over the River Ouse and the lack of road infrastructure in the town itself? I have concentrated on the Bedford area's rational road system. The bypass system is also vital, but I shall be constructive and mention other matters for consideration by the Department.
The Bedford area urgently requires two additional stations: one to the south of the river and one to the north would help matters considerably. An improved bus service should also be considered, as increased use of public transport would be useful. I am aware, however, that people like to use their own vehicles, as has been the case for decades. Subsidiary issues such as park—and—ride schemes, improved car parking, highway development within the town, and cycle lanes, are all constructive, but I shall not dwell on them as I wish to concentrate on the major issues. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to make a contribution to the general debate.
10.16 pm
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) for drawing the attention of the House to the support that his constituents have expressed for the Government's proposals for the trunk road network around Bedford and to the Getting Bedford Moving campaign promoted by the Bedford Employers Forum. My hon. Friend brought members of the forum to meet me shortly before Christmas, when they explained in detail the importance of all the schemes to Bedford's economy and to the comfort of its residents. So assiduous is my hon. Friend in his efforts that if I am opened up at some time in the future the word "Bedford" may well be found emblazoned on my heart, along with the names of many towns represented by other hon. Friends who have pressed on me the urgent need for road schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North mentioned the large petition that will shortly be presented to the House, which is further proof of Bedford's strong

119
support for important road improvements. It is gratifying to find the people of an important town such as Bedford taking such a keen and active interest in the development of their community and in road planning in particular. It is encouraging to find a community in which residents, businesses and local government are fully behind proposals for improving the road network rather than ignoring the benefits that new roads can bring, as is all too often the case.
The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell)indicated assent.
Mr. Watts: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11) gives silent but eloquent support to the needs of Bedfordshire for improved road infrastructure.
I know that my hon. Friend is fully aware of our proposals for the Bedford area, but for the benefit of the House I will explain our plans in short detail.
The national roads programme includes a series of integrated schemes aimed at removing through traffic from the town. These proposals will improve the quality of life in the bypassed communities and provide a better climate for local business.
Schemes have been included in the programme to provide a southern and a western bypass for Bedford, a link to the Norse road roundabout on the existing A428 St Neots road from the southern bypass, bypasses for the villages of Clapham and Great Barford, and improvements to the A421 between the M1 and Bedford. We also have proposals to widen the M1 through Bedfordshire and to upgrade the Al to motorway status. I am firmly of the opinion that the inclusion of those schemes demonstrates a real commitment on our part which will make the trunk road network around Bedford suitable for the 21st century, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend would like it made a little more suitable for the 20th century.
As a first major step towards implementation of this package of schemes, work began in August last year on the construction of the Bedford southern bypass. The £39 million contract represents a significant public sector investment in the Bedford area. We expect the road to open to traffic in the summer of next year and I look forward to celebrating that event with my hon. Friend. Once complete, the bypass will make an appreciable difference to the levels of through traffic in Bedford and to journey times between the Al and M1 through Bedfordshire, benefiting both local business and residents. To make the advantages of this route apparent, it will be renumbered A421 throughout, from junction 13 of the M1 motorway to the Al junction at the Black Cat roundabout, when the Bedford southern bypass is completed.
One of the stated aims of the Getting Bedford Moving campaign is to secure priority 1 status for all the schemes that I have mentioned. In April last year my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport announced the results of his review of the roads programme, which considered the relative merits of all road schemes on a national basis.
The review examined all proposals in terms of their benefits to the trunk road network and impact on the environment, so that they could be given appropriate
120
priority Most of the schemes around Bedford were placed in the priority 2 category following the review. This means that they are recognised as sufficiently important to be taken forward but that where there is competition for resources priority 1 schemes will have first call on them. However, that does not mean that no priority 2 scheme can be progressed before all priority I schemes have been completed: some priority 2 schemes may be in a state of readiness which allows them to go ahead, while some priority 1 schemes may not be ready to take the resources available.
Sir Trevor Skeet: As I said earlier, if funding were provided, would that not allow priority 2 schemes to become priority 1? The scheme would be ready for development. I do not suggest that all the bypasses be built immediately, but the one around Bedford, a major necessity, certainly should be.
Mr. Watts: I shall deal shortly with the proposal for private finance.
We are making good progress on the statutory procedures for many of our schemes around Bedford. I am pleased to say that the decision following the public inquiry into the Clapham bypass, which gives approval to the scheme, was issued just before Christmas. A start of works is now dependent on completion of the remaining procedures and the availability of funds for the works. The public inquiry into the Norse road link began on Tuesday 17 January to hear objections to that scheme. We are also consulting local people on an option to upgrade the Al to motorway status through Bedfordshire, which for some journeys provides an alternative to passing through the town itself.
The section of the proposed Bedford western bypass between the A421, which leads sout-west from Bedford to the M1 motorway and beyond, and the A428 Northampton road is the only scheme around the town to have been placed in the longer-term category following the review of the road programme. However, as my hon. Friend has made me aware, a consortium of local development interests has suggested that it could provide, at its own expense, a single carriageway link between the A421 and the A428 within the preferred route corridor for the bypass on land in its control, subject to approval of new development on the land on the Bedford side of the link. The initiative is most welcome and accords fully with the Government's desire to involve the private sector in infrastructure projects. Further progress is in the hands of the consortium and would, of course, be subject to completion of the usual local authority planning procedures. I understand that the consortium is currently preparing a detailed planning application for the development, which includes the road, for submission to Bedford borough council, the local planning authority.
The Highways Agency will continue to liaise with the consortium to ensure that its proposals are compatible with our preferred route for the Bedford western bypass and will allow for the possible future addition of a second carriageway in line with the longer-term proposals for the route. Subject to the proposals meeting those requirements, the Highways Agency would not object to any planning application and would welcome the early start of the scheme with private finance to fund it. Private sector involvement will undoubtedly enable a Bedford western bypass to be implemented far more quickly than if the project were to rely on the public sector alone.

121
My hon. Friend referred to the problems of bridges and traffic flows over them. The Department recognises that traffic flows on the bridges in the town centre are high and that there is a need to provide additional crossings of the Great Ouse for strategic traffic around Bedford. To this end, our schemes will provide three additional bridges: the Bedford southern bypass includes a 'viaduct over the river at Castle Mill; another crossing in the same vicinity, to the east of the town, will be provided by the Norse road link; and the A421 to A428 section of the Bedford western bypass will provide a crossing at the western side of the town. More importantly, in recognition of the importance of bridges in Bedford, the Government helped to fund Bedfordshire county council's reconstruction of County bridge at a cost of £1.6 million. We shall also be further supporting the reconstruction of Longholme bridge at a cost of £3.5 million. Both are key crossing points of the River Ouse in Bedford.
In addition to promoting trunk road schemes around Bedford, we have committed funding to several local road and public transport proposals during this year's spending round. The county council is promoting a package of proposals for Bedford as part of its integrated transport strategy for the town. This package approach accords with Government policy, and initially we have allocated £300,000 in the next financial year for a number of measures designed to improve the town centre environment, reducing car use and easing congestion,
122
including further pedestrianisation, bus priority schemes and parking controls, all of which my hon. Friend mentioned.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the subject on behalf of his constituents and I hope that I have been able to demonstrate our commitment to improving the trunk road network around Bedford. In the past 10 years, £31 million has been spent on new trunk road schemes in northern Bedfordshire, and the work now in hand on construction of the important Bedford southern bypass means that the total will have more than doubled by the end of next year.
I welcome the strong groundswell of support for our proposals among the people and the business community of Bedford. I hope that they will continue to make their views known to the local councils and to any relevant local public inquiries. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to advocate strongly the need for these schemes until eventually we are able to deliver them. My job would clearly be much easier if I were able to say yes to rather more of the schemes that my hon. Friends and their constituents want, and if I were less often in the position of having to argue to try to gain their acceptance of schemes that they think that they do not want—but such is life.
My hon. Friend raised a couple of questions on traffic flows. Unfortunately, I do not have accurate figures at my fingertips today, but I undertake to write to my hon. Friend with the information that he seeks shortly after the conclusion of the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Development of Tourism Act 1969
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to eliminate the anomaly whereby grants under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 are now suspended in relation to England but not the other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to reinstate grants available under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 in England.

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the combat effectiveness of the armed forces requires discrimination on the grounds of sex or race.

  Mr. Soames
  Combat effectiveness does not require discrimination on the ground of race. Some areas of employment do, however, remain closed to service women, although the scope for extending the employment of women is under review. In order to maintain combat effectiveness, however, it is unlikely that the employment of women will be extended to all front line posts of the armed forces; such exclusions are consistent with national and European law.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table setting out the ethnic composition of the armed forces at each rank in the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force at the latest available date.

  Mr. Soames
  A breakdown of the ethnic composition of each of the armed forces will be published shortly. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House at that time.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of armed forces sexual harassment policies.

  Mr. Soames
  I shall arrange for a copy of the Army and Royal Air Force documents on sexual harassment to be placed in the Library of the House shortly. The Royal Navy's policy document is nearing completion and a copy will be placed in the Library when it has been finalised.

  Household Cavalry
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the ethnic minorities are now serving in the Household Cavalry; and if he will 2
  make a statement on the progress that has been made following the investigation into recruitment practices by the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Soames
  It is a basic principle of ethnic monitoring in the Army that individual privacy should be maintained and that statistical data should protect that privacy. Ethnic monitoring in the Army does not therefore distinguish the units to which individual soldiers and officers belong. The Commission for Racial Equality investigation is continuing. No findings have yet been notified to my Department.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a table showing(a) the number and (b) percentage of women at each rank in the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force at the latest available date.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested, as at 1 October 1994 the latest date for which information is available, is as follows:

  Rank

  Number of women in the rank

  Percentage of women in the rank

  Royal Naval Services

  Commodore

  1

  2.4

  Captain

  5

  1.4

  Commander

  16

  1.3

  Lieutenant Commander

  65

  2.5

  Lieutenant

  266

  7.5

  Sub-Lieutenant

  131

  10.8

  Warrant Officer

  9

  1.0

  Chief Petty Officer

  118

  1.5

  Petty Officer

  393

  5.4

  Leading Rate

  985

  9.5

  Able Rate

  1,838

  11.0

  Ordinary Rate/Junior

  279

  19.2

  Army

  Brigadier

  3

  1.5

  Colonel

  12

  2.3

  Lieutenant Colonel

  45

  2.7

  Major

  180

  3.8

  Captain

  554

  12.8

  Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant

  366

  11.4

  Warrant Officer (Class 1)

  35

  1.9

  Warrant Officer (Class 2)

  103

  2.0

  Staff Sergeant

  209

  3.1

  Sergeant

  557

  4.7

  Corporal

  1,055

  5.6

  Lance Corporal

  1,229

  6.6

  Private (Classes 1–3)

  1,823

  5.3

  Private (Class 4)/Junior

  696

  9.6

  Royal Air Force

  Group Captain

  2

  0.5

  Wing Commander

  37

  2.9

  Squadron Leader

  163

  4.7

  Flight Lieutenant

  554

  9.0

  Flying Officer/Pilot Officer

  283

  17.1

  Warrant Officer

  23

  1.4

  Flight Sergeant/Chief Technician

  54

  1.1

  Sergeant

  448

  4.5

  Corporal

  1,037

  6.1

  Junior Technician/Senior

  Aircraftwoman/Leading

  Aircraftwoman

  3,568

  14.0

  Aircraftwoman

  143

  30.7

  This information has been extracted from the quarterly tri-service statistical return, "tri-service personnel statistics 9", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Judicial Procedures
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to ensure that court-martials and other judicial procedures within the armed forces comply with the terms of the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  Mr. Soames
  Courts-martial and other judicial proceedings within the armed forces are provided for in the service discipline Acts approved regularly by Parliament. Their procedures are regarded as consistent with the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  European Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the progress of the European common foreign and security policy.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  The CFSP has been in operation for a little over a year. A number of common positions and joint actions have been agreed and implemented by EU member states on a range of international issues, including support for the middle east peace process; extending the non-proliferation treaty; promotion of the stability pact in Europe; election monitoring in South Africa and Russia; and humanitarian relief in Bosnia, most notably manpower and financial support for the EU administration of Mostar.

  The CFSP is a relatively new tool: we are determined to use it to best effect. Already, EU member states are becoming accustomed to developing common approaches and dealing with complex and difficult international issues collectively. We welcome this progress: it is self-evidently in the interests of EU member states that they should be able to harness their collective weight in the international arena.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Joint Negotiating Machinery
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the operation of the joint negotiating machinery and Whitley Council agreements in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Industrial relations machinery in the Northern Ireland civil service is covered by the Central Whitley Council for non-industrial civil servants and the Central Joint Consultative Council for industrial employees. Negotiation and consultation between management and trade unions also take place at departmental and local level where this is appropriate. These arrangements continue to work well.

  I understand that the joint council machinery for health and personal social services staff is to be abolished from 1 April 1995. From that date, employers and staff organisations will negotiate locally the pay and other conditions of service of health and personal social services staff.

  Rate Support Grant
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the resources element of the rate 4
  support grant allocated to district councils is calculated for the 1995–96 financial year; and what was the basis for the calculation in the 1994–95 financial year.

  Mr. Moss
  As there is no specific rate support grant in Northern Ireland, I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the general exchequer grant which is payable to district councils. There are two elements: derating and resources. The resources element is calculated by subtracting the derating element, which is statutory based, from the total relevant amount available in any one year and is distributed among councils using the set formula. This was the basis used for both the 1994–95 and 1995–96 financial years.

  Brendan Smyth
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he made to(a) the Irish Attorney-General, (b) his officials, (c) other Ministers in the then Irish Government and (d) officials in the Irish Government over delays in extraditing Brendan Smyth from Ireland at any time between (i) April 1993 and February 1994 and (ii) subsequently; to whom representations were made; what was the nature of those representations; and on what date or dates representations were made.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 18 January 1995]: None.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research he has conducted into allegations that the Government receive a greater sum from the Department of Social Security's benefit clawback scheme for legally aided litigants than they actually pay out in civil legal aid to those people; and if he will publish that research.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The compensation recovery unit of the Department of Social Security does not record whether a person who recovers compensation is legally aided. Accordingly, it cannot say how much of the unit's recovery is attributable to legally-aided cases. We are considering how this information might be collected.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what studies his Department has done into the crisis concerning the cash limiting of the civil legal aid budget in New South Wales in late 1992 and early 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am aware of the cash limiting of the legal aid budget in New South Wales, and the consequences that this had.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has of the underspend on the legal aid budget for(a) civil legal aid and (b) criminal legal aid for the current financial year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The latest available projections suggest that the total net cost of legal aid will be about £1.310 billion in 1994–95, £95 million below provision. Of that total, net expenditure on civil legal aid will be around £604 million, £41 million below provision, and expenditure on criminal legal aid will be about £476 million, £15 million below provision. The remaining
  5
  expenditure relates to advice and assistance and the duty solicitor schemes.

  Sexual Harassment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken to examine the implications of the decision of the Dover magistrates court not to hear the sexual harassment case brought by the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of a British crew member on Stena Sealink's Fantasia ferry on the ground that the alleged incident occurred on a foreign registered vessel; and if he will make a statement in respect of United Kingdom citizens employed on foreign-flagged vessels.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I understand that the case was dismissed because the court was not satisfied it had the necessary territorial jurisdiction. In general, courts will have jurisdiction for an offence committed in territorial waters, on a British ship, or if the accused is a British subject. Where the offence is committed on the high seas, the matter is likely to fall within the jurisdiction of the country with which the ship is registered.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals against a refusal of asylum on safe third country grounds were made to the Immigration Appeals Authority in 1994; and how many of these appeals were dismissed by the special adjudicator.

  Mr. John. M. Taylor
  There were 763 appeals heard by the special adjudicators in 1994 where the Secretary of State had certified that the person's claim to asylum was without foundation. Four hundred and twelve of these appeals were dismissed by the special adjudicator under the special appeal procedures for claims without foundation. While these appeals included appeals against a refusal of asylum on safe third country grounds, the figures kept do not distinguish between the different types of cases within the overall category of those certified to be without foundation.

  Mr. Bryce Taylor
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what sums of legal aid have so far been awarded to Mr. Bryce Taylor in respect of the action being taken against him by Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No payment has as yet been made from the legal aid fund in respect of the action between HRH the Princess of Wales and Mr. Bryce Taylor. The final cost to the legal aid fund will depend on the outcome of the case, and, if appropriate, any legal aid cost will be subject to taxation by the court.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Child Labour
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will discuss with high street retailers the practice of commissioning garments from suppliers who employ child labour in their fabrication.
  6
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology explained in his answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 19 January 1995,Official Report, column 592, goods produced by unacceptable labour practices are generally indistinguishable in appearance from the same type of goods produced by other means. Moreover, the varied and complex channels of production and their distribution mean that there are severe practical difficulties in identifying their origin.

  The majority of high street retailers have stated that they would not knowingly source from suppliers whose garments have been manufactured using illegal child labour. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would be prepared to discuss this issue when he next meets representatives of the retail industry.

  British Gas (Complaints)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the trend of complaints against British Gas by gas consumers.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Gas Consumers Council is responsible for investigating consumer complaints and the Office of Gas Supply, Ofgas, is responsible for monitoring British Gas's activities as a public gas supplier. The number of complaints about British Gas received by these bodies in the last three years as follows:

  OFGAS

  GCC

  1992

  1,624 (328)

  25,280

  1993

  1,658 (329)

  20,428

  1994

  2,192 (320)

  24,359

  Note: The figures in brackets represent the number of Ofgas complaints subsequently referred to the GCC. The GCC totals include those cases referred from Ofgas.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the negotiations with United States authorities regarding proposals by British Nuclear Fuels plc to import radioactively contaminated nitric acid from the US Energy Department nuclear complex at Harford.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 1 November 1994,Official Report, column 1025.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the policy position set out by EC Energy Commissioner elect, Christos Papoutsis, during the confirmation hearings before the European Parliament on 9 January, in regard to the uneconomic status of recycled commercial plutonium for nuclear fuel and the attendant problems of safeguarding plutonium.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government's policy on the question of whether to reprocess or to seek alternative spent fuel management options is that this is a matter for the owners of the spent fuel.

  With regard to the remarks referred to by the hon. Member, I am informed that Mr. Papoutsis made it clear at the time that he was speaking in a personal capacity.

  Nuclear Review
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the conclusions of the nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 19 October 1994,Official Report, column 239.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the matters discussed, and agreements reached, at the European Union negotiations with the United States Government in Washington on 10 to 12 January on the 10-year extension of the US-EURATOM nuclear co-operation agreement of 1959.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Negotiations are continuing between the European Commission and the United States aimed at developing a new agreement for nuclear co-operation to replace the existing agreement which is due to expire on 31 December 1995. A copy of the Commission's press release reporting the outcome of the latest negotiating round has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It would be inappropriate to go into the details of the negotiations while talks continue.

  Printing Industry (Paper Costs)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the printing industry about changes in the cost of paper over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received no direct representations from the printing industry. Ministers and officials in the Department have regular contact with the British Printing Industries Federation and are aware of the sector's concerns about paper price increase.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies his Department has made into the change in the costs of paper for the printing industry in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Department is aware of the increase in paper prices over this period but has not made any specific studies into the subject.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the change in(a) the cost of paper for the printing industry, (b) the average cost of raw materials and (c) the average change in the cost of finished products over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Price indices for raw materials purchased and for home sales by the printing and publishing industry can be obtained from the Central Statistical Office's "Business Monitor", MM22, tables 3 and 4, or alternatively from CSO's central shared database. Access to both is available in the Library of the House. Separate details for the cost of paper purchased by this industry are not available from official sources.

  Barnsley and Doncaster (Exports)
  Mr. Illesley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the value of exports from Barnsley and Doncaster to(a) European community countries, (b) European free trade area countries, (c) Arab League countries and (d) the rest of the world for the most recent period for which figures are available.
  8
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information is not available since the official statistics of trade of the United Kingdom are not compiled for individual regions within the UK.

  British Gas (Killingworth)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of the impact on Newcastle university of the loss of research and development resources at British Gas, Killingworth.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that British Gas places research contracts with universities throughout the United Kingdom on the basis of their capabilities. The existing work programmes at Newcastle university will continue in accordance with the contracts and new proposals will be considered, along with those from other universities, in the same manner as before.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what offer of regional assistance was made to British Gas to retain employment for those persons who are employed at Killingworth.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No offer of regional selective assistance has been made to British Gas and no application for such assistance has been received.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current capacity of the United Kingdom's renewable energy supplies; what is his target for renewable generating capacity by the year 2000; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The total electrical capacity of the United Kingdom's renewable energy supplies operational at the end of 1993 was estimated to be 1,749 MW DNC—declared net capacity—including 256.4 MW DNC of capacity under non-fossil fuel obligation arrangements.

  The Government are working towards a figure of 1,500 MW DNC of new electricity generating capacity from renewable energy sources by the year 2000.

  Figures are published annually in the "Digest of UK Energy Statistics".

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made as to the impact of the closure of research and development facilities at Killingworth on developing technology and employment prospects in such technology within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that much of the work carried out at engineering research station at Killingworth will be transferred to the gas research centre at Loughborough. Appropriate equipment and facilities will be moved there and the research staff are being strongly encouraged to relocate. I understand that British Gas does not believe there will be an adverse impact on the prospects for developing technology or employment in such technology.

  Nuclear Materials (Safeguards)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1995,Official Report, columns 184–85, if he will update the total of notifications of withdrawal of nuclear materials from

  9
  safeguards, indicating the uses to which the materials were put and whether any withdrawals were permanent.

  Mr. Eggar
  There have been four notifications of withdrawal of nuclear material from safeguards since my answer last year. All were permanent withdrawals and involved small amounts of nuclear material for R and D or analytical purposes, or depleted uranium for sources shielding.

  Indonesian Aircraft
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he learned of the Indonesian Government's interest in setting up a plant in Europe to assemble N250 aeroplanes; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade met the Indonesian Minister for Research and Technology on 22 December 1994 when future plans for the Indonesian N250 aircraft were raised. I understand that these plans have also been discussed with UK aerospace companies. Decisions on participation will be a commercial matter for the companies concerned.

  Yorkshire Mining Museum
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long his Department will take to pay the £102,063 non-quota grant from the European regional development fund to the Yorkshire mining museum, once the funds are received from the European Commission; and what recompense he will make to the museum for the delay in receiving funds.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This project was not funded by the European regional development fund non-quota programmes but as a single project. The grant has been received from the European Commission and payment to the Yorkshire mining museum was made on 20 January by the Department of the Environment. There are no compensation provisions.

  Uranium Storage
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what type of uranium is stored at Chapelcross.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: Depleted uranium.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions departmental officials met representatives of Ian Greer Associates(a) formally and (b) informally in the last two days to discuss matters relating to their clients' interests.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions he or his Ministers met representatives of Ian Greer Associates informally in the last month and discussed matters relating to the interests of the clients of Ian Greer Associates.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the last month he or his Ministers met representatives of Ian Greer 10
  Associates informally to discuss matters relating to the interests of the clients of Ian Greer Associates.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: None.

  HPC Virus
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to invoke Crown use in relation to the use of the virus HPC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Crown use provisions remain available as a last resort.

  Although concern has been expressed concerning the supply and cost of test kits for the hepatitis C virus, the supply is adequate and continuing competition can be expected to ensure value for money.

HEALTH

  Community Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to remove from NI-HS approved registered lists firms or individuals involved in significant community care fraud.

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service contracting authorities already have powers under the various public contracts regulations to exclude from tenders suppliers who have been convicted of a relevant offence or who have been guilty of gross professional misconduct. These powers are used in appropriate cases, but are matters for decision by each contracting authority in the light of the known facts of each case.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the absenteeism rate for the Medicines Control Agency in each year since 1991;

  (2) what was the absenteeism rate for National Health Service Estates in each year since 1991;

  (3) what was the absenteeism rate for the NHS Pensions Agency in each year since 1991;

  (4) what was the absenteeism rate for her Department in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The absenteeism rate for 1993 for the Department of Health including the Medicines Control Agency, National Health Service Estates and NHS Pensions Agency is 9.7 working days absence per staff year. Information for the Department, excluding the three agencies, for 1993 cannot be separately identified. Information is not available for 1991 and 1992.

  1. Source: Occupational health service.

  2. Working days absences exclude weekends and bank holidays for staff working a "Monday to Friday" week.

  Cancer
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of(a) the cost of the organisational audit developed by the Macmillan Fund in measuring the effectiveness of cancer care services and

  11
  (b) the minimum standards for breast cancer care proposed by the Macmillan Fund.

  Mr. Sackville
  No such work has been commissioned centrally.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many specialist breast cancer consultants there are in the NHS;

  (2) what is the average cost of supporting a cancer patient (a) at home and (b) in hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Utting Report
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department has taken in response to the criticisms made in the Utting report of 1991.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the Children Act report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Residential Child Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she has had with local authorities and other providers of residential child care about standards of such care; and what proposals she has made for tackling current problems.

  Mr. Bowis
  Ministers and officials have regular discussions with representatives of local authority and independent sector organisations on a wide range of issues including that of residential care for children.

  For the Government's report on action in this area, I refer the hon. Member to the Children Act report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential child care staff there were with relevant qualifications in each year since 1980; and what information she has about the turnover rate of(a) qualified and (b) unqualified residential child care staff.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on qualifications and turnover of residential child care staff was collected in 1993 by the Local Government Management Board and published in "Social Services Workforce Analysis: 1993 Survey", copies of which are available in the Library. Information on qualifications and turnover of local authority social services staff is not available centrally.

  EC Butter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which regional health authority and district health authorities use European Community intervention board butter (i) for patients' use and (ii) for use in hospital coffee shops; and if she will make a statement;

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware of any regional or district health authorities currently buying intervention board butter. The main national health service purchasers are NHS trusts, of which the vast majority buy in the butter under national contract arrangements for use in hospitals in accordance with EEC regulation No. 2191/81, as amended. Eligible consumers within any hospital may include hospital in-patients and out-patients, and the hospital staff using the hospital catering facilities.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state in respect of the appointment of the chairman of the Doncaster royal infirmary NHS trust(a) the salary awarded, (b) the term of office and (c) the number of hours per week required to be devoted to the job.

  Mr. Sackville
  Mr. Raymond Tonkinson was appointed as chairman of the Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu hospital national health service trust for a two-year term, from 17 October 1994 until 30 November 1996. He is entitled to receive an annual remuneration of £17,145. Trust chairmen are normally expected to devote 16 to 24 hours a week to their duties.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys intends to publish the figures on standardised mortality ratios by social class derived from the 1991 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  Standardised mortality ratios by social class are published 10-yearly. Those based on data from the 1991 census will be included in a volume in the decennial supplement series planned for publication in late 1997. The latest available information is in the occupational mortality decennial supplement 1979–80, 1982–83, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mental Health Task Force
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how and when the NHS executive and the mental health task force plan to review progress with local action plans to improve mental health services in London for severely mentally ill people, in accordance with the task force report on priorities for action.

  Mr. Bowis
  Progress is being carefully monitored by the national health service executive's regional offices. The mental health task force has worked with the regional offices to review local action plans and has recently completed a programme of follow-up visits to the district health authorities in London to check progress.

  Blood
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to disallow the sale for profit of blood donated to the national blood transfusion service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national blood service does not sell for profit the blood which is freely donated by our volunteer donors.

  Skin Donations
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to amend the wording on organ donor cards to refer specifically to skin donation after death; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Both the organ donor card and the national health service organ donor register already include among other options a request that "any part of my body can be used for the treatment of others".
  13
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards a national skin bank in the last three months.

  Mr. Sackville
  The United Kingdom Health Departments have commissioned a review to look into the current arrangements for the retrieval, storage and use of tissue, including skin, in the United Kingdom. The findings are not yet complete; when they are we shall give careful consideration to what skin banking arrangements will be needed for the future.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the level of underdrawing on capital allocations in each of the last five years by region(a) as a cash total and (b) as a proportion of total allocation made for that year.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  1989–90 Capital Underspending

  Region

  Cash (£'s)

  As a percentage cash limit

  Northern

  2,205

  3.92

  East Anglia

  4,034

  11.99

  Oxford

  256

  0.68

  1990–91 Capital Underspending

  Region

  Cash (£'s)

  As a percentage cash limit

  Yorkshire

  1,268

  1.25

  Trent

  95

  0.08

  Oxford

  141

  0.30

  South Western

  176

  0.21

  North Western

  111

  0.11

  1991–92 Capital Underspending

  Region

  Cash (£'s)

  As a percentage cash limit

  Northern

  1,712

  2.27

  Yorkshire

  4,140

  6.07

  Trent

  175

  0.13

  East Anglia

  8,959

  17.94

  North East Thames

  6,865

  8.81

  South West Thames

  2,576

  5.81

  Wessex

  136

  0.18

  Oxford

  356

  0.72

  South Western

  3,196

  3.53

  West Midlands

  2,203

  1.19

  North Western

  195

  0.16

  1992–93 Capital Underspending

  Region

  Cash (£'s)

  As a percentage cash limit

  Northern

  6,838

  9.25

  Yorkshire

  1,983

  3.53

  Trent

  269

  0.25

  East Anglia

  2,563

  5.16

  14

  1992–93 Capital Underspending

  Region

  Cash (£'s)

  As a percentage cash limit

  North West Thames

  1,587

  2.01

  North East Thames

  5,094

  8.66

  South East Thames

  941

  0.91

  South Western

  1,331

  2.73

  West Midlands

  6,114

  4.72

  Mersey

  477

  2.57

  North Western

  197

  0.18

  1993–94 Capital Underspending

  Region

  Cash (£'s)

  As a percentage cash limit

  Northern

  14,734

  20.69

  Yorkshire

  3,583

  21.52

  Trent

  167

  0.44

  North West Thames

  1,232

  13.11

  North East Thames

  11,216

  24.48

  South West Thames

  12,436

  265.671

  Wessex

  1,442

  4.88

  Oxford

  107

  0.39

  South Western

  2,719

  15.05

  West Midlands

  36,363

  37.14

  Mersey

  793

  -58.4222

  North Western

  10,687

  13.41

  1 South West Thames' final capital limit was £4.681 million. After taking account of receipts, net spend was -£7.897 million—capital receipts exceeded spending by this amount—making the underspend against the cash limit £12.436.

  2 Mersey Regional health authority's final cash limit was -£1.907 million after transfers to trust external financing limits. After taking account of receipts, net spend was -£2.7 million—capital receipts exceeded spending by this amount—making the underspend against the cash limit £0.793 million.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current level of underdrawing on capital allocations in each region.

  Mr. Sackville
  All regional health authorities currently expect to draw down all of their capital cash limits in 1994–95.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average time taken to approve new capital schemes in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was(a) total NHS expenditure, (b) current expenditure on the hospital and community health services, (c) capital expenditure on the hospital and community health services, (d) expenditure on the family practitioner services, (e) expenditure on centrally funded NHS services and (f) expenditure on personal social services in England in each year since 1974–75 giving each in (i) cash terms, (ii) adjusted using the relevant pay and prices index and (iii) adjusted using the gross domestic product deflator;

  (2) if she will give for each year since 1974–75 total capital spending on hospital and community health services and spending in net terms after deducting proceeds from land and property sales (a) in cash terms, (b) adjusted using the GDP deflator and (c) adjusted using the relevant index of NHS prices.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The information will be placed in the Library.
  15
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the per capita spending on health and personal social services in cash terms and adjusted for NHS pay prices and for input volume for each year for which estimates have been made from 1989–90 to the latest available year for(a) all ages, (b) births, (c) zero to four years, (d) five to 15 years, (e) 16 to 64 years, (f) 65 to 74 years and (g) 75 years and over, giving the amount spent on (i) hospital and community health services, (ii) family practitioner services, (iii) personal social services and (iv) total in England.

  Hospital and community health services 1992–93

  All ages

  Births

  0 to 4

  5 to 15

  16 to 64

  65 to 74

  75 and over

  £'s cash

  420

  1,750

  390

  175

  265

  725

  1,605

  Family health services 1989–90

  All ages

  Births

  0 to 4

  5 to 15

  16 to 64

  65 to 74

  75 and over

  £'s cash

  105

  120

  80

  60

  95

  170

  240

  1992–93 prices Real terms

  125

  145

  95

  70

  115

  205

  285

  1992–93 Adjusted for FHS pay and prices inflation

  140

  155

  105

  80

  125

  225

  315

  Personal social services 1989–90

  All ages

  Births

  0 to 4

  5 to 15

  16 to 64

  65 to 74

  75 and over

  £'s cash

  85

  35

  115

  115

  30

  110

  475

  1992–93 prices real terms

  100

  40

  135

  135

  35

  130

  565

  1992–93 adjusted for PSS pay and price inflation

  105

  45

  140

  140

  35

  135

  580

  Notes:

  All figures rounded to nearest £5.

  Estimates do not include capital expenditure.

  Health Services (Demand)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the most recently available estimates of the percentage changes in demand on the hospital and community health services due to demographic change for each year from 1972–73 to 1999–2000.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The available information is shown in the table.

  Estimated percentage change in demand on the hospital and community health services due to demographic changes

  Year

  Increase over previous year Per cent.

  Estimated

  1975–76

  0.1

  1976–77

  0.2

  1977–78

  0.3

  1978–79

  1.0

  1979–80

  1.3

  1980–81

  1.1

  1981–82

  0.6

  1982–83

  0.7

  1983–84

  0.9

  1984–85

  0.9

  1985–86

  1.1

  1986–87

  0.8

  16
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Estimates of spending per head by age group for the personal social services and for the family health services are no longer produced. The latest available are shown in the table.

  Estimates for the hospital and community health services are still produced annually, but as a result of changes in data resources, definitions and the methodology used, comparable figures for a series of years cannot be produced. The latest estimates are also shown in the table.

  Estimated percentage change in demand on the hospital and community health services due to demographic changes

  Year

  Increase over previous year Per cent.

  1987–88

  1.5

  1988–89

  1.1

  1989–90

  1.0

  1990–91

  0.9

  1991–92

  0.8

  1992–93

  1.1

  Projected

  1993–94

  0.8

  1994–95

  0.7

  1995–96

  0.6

  1996–97

  0.7

  1997–98

  0.6

  1998–99

  0.6

  1999–2000

  0.5

  Notes:

  1 Estimates for years 1975–76 to 1980–81 are based on the following age bands: births, age bands 0 to 4, 5 to 15, 16 to 44, 45 to 64, 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 and over.

  Estimates from 1981–82 are based on; births, age bands 0 to 4, 5 to 15, 16 to 44, 45 to 64, and single year age groups between aged 65 to 89, and aggregated years 90 and over.

  2 Figures are based on data from the 1991 census.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for April to September 1987 and for each subsequent six month period(a) the numbers of people admitted from waiting lists to hospital for in-patient treatment, (b) the numbers of people removed from in-patient waiting lists for reasons other than treatment, (c) the numbers of people admitted from waiting lists for day case treatment, (d) the numbers of people removed from day-case waiting lists for reasons other than treatment, (e) the numbers of people on in-patient waiting lists who self deferred and (f) the numbers of people on day-case waiting lists who self deferred.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: The information requested for admissions and self-deferrals is given in the tables. Information on the number of people removed from waiting lists for reasons other than treatment is not held centrally.

  Admissions

  6 months to:

  Ordinary

  Day case

  September 1987

  801,755

  268,631

  March 1988

  924,677

  347,273

  September 1988

  941,363

  359,213

  March 1989

  938,864

  392,646

  September 1989

  939,516

  420,536

  March 1990

  934,164

  454,266

  September 1990

  910,557

  465,603

  March 1991

  888,291

  496,554

  September 1991

  918,376

  534,998

  March 1992

  938,842

  601,316

  September 1992

  901,687

  638,905

  March 1993

  879,834

  691,201

  September 1993

  829,580

  712,016

  March 1994

  800,632

  768,249

  September 1994

  796,780

  849,379

  Self Deferrals

  Number at:

  Ordinary

  Day case

  September 1987

  40,766

  8,977

  March 1988

  39,115

  8,361

  September 1988

  40,753

  8,433

  March 1989

  37,098

  8,769

  September 1989

  38,224

  9,905

  March 1990

  36,441

  9,735

  September 1990

  39,274

  11,865

  March 1991

  36,115

  11,998

  September 1991

  33,868

  12,469

  March 1992

  30,965

  13,151

  September 1992

  35,992

  18,134

  March 1993

  35,800

  19,095

  September 1993

  41,550

  24,142

  March 1994

  39,189

  25,185

  September 1994

  43,538

  34,946

  Note:

  The numbers relate to the numbers who are waiting on the last day of the six-month period who have self-deferred and do not represent the total number who have self-deferred over the period.

TREASURY

  Nicaragua (Debt Relief)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures the Government will take to encourage EU 18
  partners' support for the International Monetary Fund and Paris Club proposals to grant Nicaragua further debt relief.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government will continue to press other Paris Club creditors at all international meetings to offer all eligible countries including Nicaragua debt relief consistent with the agreement reached by the Paris Club last December. We will also continue to press for action on multilateral debt, along the lines we proposed in Malta and Madrid, for those countries which will still have unsustainable debt liabilities to the multilateral institutions even after generous Trinidad terms debt relief.

  Golden Shares
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what undertakings Her Majesty's Government retain a golden share; and in what circumstances rights relating to that golden share are to be used by Her Majesty's Government.

  Sir George Young
  The table shows all the companies in which the Government holds special—or "golden"—shares. Where this is applicable, the table shows the expiry date on or before which the Government may redeem a special share. Special shares are held by—or on behalf of—the Secretary of State with policy responsibility for the privatised industry. The rights attaching to individual special shares vary and it is not possible to define in advance the circumstances in which they will be exercised.

  Companies in which special shares are held

  Company

  Expiry dale

  Cable and Wireless

  —

  Sealink Stena Line

  —

  BT

  —

  British Aerospace

  —

  VSEL Consortium

  —

  British Gas

  —

  Rolls-Royce

  —

  BAA

  —

  Eastern Electricity

  31 March 1995

  East Midlands Electricity

  31 March 1995

  London Electricity

  31 March 1995

  Manweb

  31 March 1995

  Midlands Electricity

  31 March 1995

  Northern Electric

  31 March 1995

  Norweb

  31 March 1995

  Seeboard

  31 March 1995

  Southern Electricity

  31 March 1995

  South Wales Electricity

  31 March 1995

  South Western Electricity

  31 March 1995

  Yorkshire Electricity Group

  31 March 1995

  National Grid Company

  —

  National Grid Holding

  —

  National Power

  —

  PowerGen

  —

  Scottish Power

  —

  Scottish Hydro-Electric

  —

  British Technology Group

  31 March 1997

  British Technology Group International

  31 March 1997

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  —

  Belfast International Airport

  —

  Crown Buildings (Insurance)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the main buildings, in which the Crown has an interest, for which there is neither buildings nor contents
  19
  insurance cover; what considerations underlay the decision not to take out insurance cover; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Government's long-standing policy on insurance is that decisions on whether to insure commercially should be made on value-for-money grounds. Across Government as a whole, the cost of paying premiums could be expected to exceed the value of claims met by insurance companies. Therefore, use of commercial insurance, including buildings or contents insurance cover, by Government Departments and other Crown bodies is confined to a very small number of cases where special considerations apply.

  Investment
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the levels of investment in the United Kingdom and in the United Kingdom's main international competitors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on investment levels is set out in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development annual publication, "National Accounts", available in the House of Commons Library.

  VAT
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the European Commission's latest proposals for imposition of VAT in circumstances currently exempt under the sixth VAT directive, and its implication for charities.

  Administration expenditure 1979–90 to 1993–94 at 1993–94 prices £'000

  Inland Revenue

  HM Treasury

  Gross

  Receipts

  Net

  Gross

  Receipts

  Net

  1979–80

  Budget

  1,119,064

  -56,672

  1,062,392

  23,690

  -935

  22,754

  Actual

  1,095,171

  -56,672

  1,038,499

  23,073

  -972

  22,101

  1980–81

  Budget

  1,205,609

  -58,803

  1,146,806

  26,817

  -998

  25,819

  Actual

  1,173,089

  -47,299

  1,125,790

  25,315

  -1,106

  24,209

  1981–82

  Budget

  1,173,955

  -61,536

  1,112,419

  31,509

  -1,410

  30,099

  Actual

  1,123,844

  -61,536

  1,062,308

  29,252

  -1,599

  27,653

  1982–83

  Budget

  1,140,582

  -59,824

  1,080,757

  37,221

  -1,537

  35,684

  Actual

  1,134,764

  -59,824

  1,074,940

  36,007

  -1,491

  34,517

  1983–84

  Budget

  1,338,337

  -66,532

  1,271,805

  47,572

  -1,161

  46,411

  Actual

  1,327,700

  -66,532

  1,261,168

  46,046

  -1,317

  44,730

  1984–85

  Budget

  1,342,929

  -66,873

  1,276,055

  48,729

  -1,345

  47,384

  Actual

  1,341,829

  -66,873

  1,274,956

  45,661

  -1,628

  44,033

  1985–86

  Budget

  1,407,281

  -65,555

  1,341,726

  48,159

  -1,489

  46,670

  Actual

  1,407,201

  -65,555

  1,341,645

  46,772

  -1,495

  45,278

  1986–87

  Budget

  1,492,638

  -67,886

  1,424,751

  47,936

  -1,767

  46,169

  Actual

  1,491,212

  -67,886

  1,423,325

  45,966

  -1,686

  44,28

  20
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The latest proposals from the European Commission which would affect the exemptions in the sixth VAT directive date from July 1992. No conclusions have been reached, and any possible impact on charities would in any case by negligible. The UK's zero rates are not affected.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the budgeted and actual expenditure on(a) Her Majesty's Treasury administration and (b) Inland Revenue administration, for each year from 1979 to 1994 in 1993 prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: The table details the administration expenditure for HM Treasury and Inland Revenue going back to 1979–80 in 1993–94 prices. The table compares the gross voted administrative expenditure, including capital, less appropriations in aid-budget-to the outturn expenditure-actual-for the same expenditure. Over the period, there have been several significant changes to the way public expenditure is recorded. The most significant changes have been the delegation to Departments for capital expenditure on information technology in 1980–81; of accommodation costs in 1983–84 and of superannuation in 1993–94. There have also been some machinery of Government changes, including in 1992–93 the transfer of some of the DTI's regulatory functions to the Treasury. Recalculation of the figures to compensate for these changes could be done only at disproportionate cost.
  21

  Administration expenditure 1979–90 to 1993–94 at 1993–94 prices £'000

  Inland Revenue

  HM Treasury

  Gross

  Receipts

  Net

  Gross

  Receipts

  Net

  1987–88

  Budget

  1,542,576

  -78,314

  1,464,262

  53,282

  -1,796

  51,486

  Actual

  1,536,849

  -78,314

  1,458,534

  51,451

  -1,670

  49,782

  1988–89

  Budget

  1,532,516

  -74,966

  1,457,550

  54,733

  -1,743

  52,990

  Actual

  1,506,931

  -74,691

  1,432,240

  51,740

  -1,673

  50,067

  1989–90

  Budget

  1,594,402

  -72,384

  1,522,019

  50,912

  -1,855

  49,057

  Actual

  1,588,420

  -72,384

  1,516,036

  49,413

  -1,730

  47,683

  1990–91

  Budget

  1,534,456

  -68,994

  1,465,463

  53,809

  -1,710

  52,099

  Actual

  1,528,990

  -68,994

  1,459,997

  51,869

  -1,886

  50,183

  1991–92

  Budget

  1,747,570

  -102,262

  1,645,308

  63,835

  -1,732

  62,104

  Actual

  1,733,464

  -102,262

  1,631,202

  61,590

  -1,887

  59,703

  1992–93

  Budget

  1,762,968

  -98,478

  1,664,490

  64,862

  -1,678

  63,124

  Actual

  1,694,685

  -98,478

  1,596,207

  62,190

  -2,268

  59,922

  1993–94

  Budget

  1,843,192

  -171,278

  1,671,914

  86,913

  -16,286

  70,627

  Actual

  1,820,538

  -159,089

  1,661,449

  82,070

  -16,367

  65,703

  Schedule E Tax
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a tax allowance under schedule E tax, so that an individual, employed through an agency, who has to meet his or her own accommodation and travel expenses when having to work away from home under contract, is able to set such expenses against tax as in the case of an employee required to work at a remote location to his or her usual place of work.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: This is a matter which we keep under active review, but to date it has not been possible to find a solution which does not infringe the general rule that the tax relief is not available for the normal costs of home-to-work travel.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will identify those measures in each of his last two Budgets which were specifically intended to promote home ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The last two Budgets have given general encouragement to home ownership by promoting sustained economic growth. In addition, they have included specific measures to encourage local authority and housing association tenants to become home owners.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff in his Departments have reported an offer of employment from an outside employer since February 1993 as required under the civil service management code; and how many of these records were followed by an application to join the company concerned.
  22
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 18 January 1995]: Eight Treasury staff have reported offers of employment from an outside employer since February 1993, one of which was followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  In addition, 56 staff in other Departments responsible to the Chancellor have reported offers of employment from outside employers since February 1993, 53 of which were followed by applications to join the company concerned.

PRIME MINISTER

  MI5 Headquarters
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the procedures that need to be followed by a hon. Member to be able to visit the MI5 headquarters; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not normal practice for the Security Service to host visits to Thames house by hon. Members.

  Seals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 24 March 1994,Official Report, columns 343–44, what was the outcome of the discussions with Russia on seal hunting.

  The Prime Minister
  The British mission in Moscow raised this issue with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in March last year, and left the Russians in no doubt of the strength of United Kingdom public opposition to the practice of seal culling. We continue
  23
  to take suitable opportunities to raise this matter with the Russians.

  Weapons of Torture
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up a Government inquiry into the sales of weapons of torture by British companies to states where Amnesty International has documented torture.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government give careful consideration to proposals for the export of weapons. In considering such proposals, special care is taken over the political and military implications of allowing consignments to go overseas. Particular attention is paid to countries with poor human "right"s records, where equipment might be used for internal repression. I do not therefore believe there is any need for a Government inquiry.

  Social Development Summit
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will participate in the world summit on social development on 6 to 12 March in Copenhagen.

  The Prime Minister
  I will make a decision on attendance nearer the date.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Prime Minister what consideration he gave to sending an official British representative to the preparatory meeting in New York sponsored by the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development and the United Nations Development Programme for the world summit on social development in Copenhagen in March.

  The Prime Minister
  Officials from the Foreign Office, Overseas Development Administration and Department of Employment are in New York attending the final preparatory committee meeting for the world summit on social development, which will take place in Copenhagen in March. Some of those officials attended the seminar sponsored by UNRISD and UNDP, which took place in the week prior to the preparatory committee meeting.

  Holocaust Museum
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will support the creation of a Holocaust museum in London comparable with those in other major capital cites in Europe and north America.

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that the imperial war museum is considering creating a new museum which would cover the holocaust and other 20th century acts of genocide. That is a matter in the first instance for the trustees of the imperial war museum to consider.

  Nex Steps Agencies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 275, if he will list the Government Department next steps agencies with regional offices in the west country specifying in each case (a) its location, (b) the number of staff in each and (c) the annual cost.
  24
  The Prime Minister
  The table lists next steps agencies with offices in the west country. The information requested about these offices is not held centrally. This is a matter for the next steps agencies concerned.

  NEXT STEPS AGENCIES WITH OFFICES LOCATED IN THE WEST COUNTRY

  ADAS Agency

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  Defence Research Agency

  Disposal Sales Agency

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Driving Standards Agency

  Employment Service

  Government Property Lawyers

  HM Prison Service

  Highways Agency

  Hydrographic Office

  Insolvency Service

  Land Registry

  Marine Safety Agency

  Meteorological Office

  Ordnance Survey

  Radiocommunications Agency

  RAF Training Group

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Social Security War Pensions Directorate

  Valuation Office

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Departments operating fully on Next Steps lines:

  Customs and Excise

  Inland Revenue (excluding Valuation Office)

  Nolan Committee
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place a transcript of each day's proceedings of the Nolan committee in the Library as it is published.

  The Prime Minister
  Publication of transcripts of each day's proceedings is a matter for the Committee on Standards in public life. I understand that copies are available from the company appointed by the committee to prepare its official transcript. The Library can, of course, subscribe to this service.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has for sanctions to be available in the case of a witness who deliberately misleads the Nolan committee.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no reason to believe that such circumstances will arise.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Ministers have informal meetings on matters of public policy with lobbying groups in the course of meetings which they are attending in a private capacity.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers do not hold or attend meetings on matters of public policy in a private capacity.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister following the letter he has received from Miss Pamela Dix of Woking, secretary of United Kingdom Families of Flight 103 of 21 December 1994, if he will amend his answer to the oral question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 15 December 1994,Official Report, column 1068.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him on 10 January 1995,Official Report, column 20.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to promote home ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: Yes. Owner-occupation in the United Kingdom has risen from just over 54 per cent. in 1979 to over 66 per cent. now. Home ownership is more affordable than for many years. Surveys show that owner-occupation is the preferred housing choice of about 80 per cent. of people. The Government remain fully committed to promoting the continued growth of sustainable home ownership, both by prudent management of the economy and through specific policies to help people become home owners.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the Departments and agencies for which I and my "right" hon. Friend the Prime Minister have responsibility the information for the calendar year 1994 is as follows:
  26

  1.

  Title:

  The General Management Development Programme.

  Objectives

  To contribute towards achieving results through corporate and executive development.

  Organisation

  Sundridge Park Business School.

  Total cost

  £37,392.

  Number of attendees

  6.

  Responsibility of attendees

  Business and Support Managers in Business Suppliesdivision, HMSO

  Evaluation

  Verbal feedback and written course appraisals from attendees

  2.

  Title:

  Strategic Management Programme

  Objectives

  To help senior managers develop their strategic management skills, enabling them to apply these skills in the context of their own organisations

  Organisation Total cost

  Henley management college £10,516

  Number of attendees

  1

  Responsibility of attendees

  Senior managers in HMSO

  Evaluation

  Verbal feedback and written course appraisal from attendees

  No staff attended any other external training and tuition courses in 1994 where total costs for the individual exceeded £5,000.

EMPLOYMENT

  Low Pay
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of(a) male and (b) female employees and the total number of employees estimated to be on low pay for each of the standard regions of the United Kingdom; and if he will publish comparable available data for each of the member states of the European Union.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Definitions of low pay are arbitrary and take no account of particular circumstances. There is therefore no definition of low pay upon which such an analysis can be based.

  Employment Training Percentage of leavers in each outcome three months after leaving July 1989–March 1990 leavers in Hampshire TEC area

  Full-time work Per cent

  Part time-work Per cent

  Self employed Per cent.

  Further education and training1 Per cen t

  Unemployment' Per cent.

  Unemployment duration before startng training

  6–12 months

  31

  6

  7

  2

  46

  Greater than 12 months

  24

  10

  3

  1

  53

  Employment Training Percentage of leavers in each outcome three months after leaving 1990–91 leavers in Hampshire TEC area

  Full-time work Per cent.

  Part-time work Per cent.

  Self employment Per cent.

  Further education and training1 Per cent.

  Unemployment2 Per cent.

  Unemployment duration before starting training

  6–12 months

  20

  5

  5

  3

  58

  Greater than 12 months

  14

  14

  1

  2

  56

  Employment Training Percentage of leavers in each outcome six months after leaving 1991–92 leavers in Hampshire TEC area

  Full-time work Per cent.

  Part-time work Per cent.

  Self employment Per cent.

  Further education and training1 Per cent.

  Unemployment2 Per cent.

  Unemployment duration before starting training

  6–12 months

  16

  7

  5

  4

  61

  Greater than 12 months

  9

  12

  2

  3

  66

  Employment Training Percentage of leavers in each outcome six months after leaving 1992–93 leavers in Hampshire TEC area

  Full-time work Per cent.

  Part-time work Per cent.

  Self employment Per cent.

  Further education and training1 Per cent.

  Unemployment2 Per cent.

  Unemployment duration before starting training

  6–12 months

  23

  6

  2

  3

  58

  Greater than 12 months

  12

  8

  2

  4

  66

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide for each of the past five years and for(a) those unemployed for six to 12 months, (b) those unemployed for 12 to 24 months and (c) those unemployed for more than 24 months, the percentage of those leaving adult training schemes who progressed to (i) full-time work, (ii) part-time work, (iii) self-employment, (iv) further education or training and (v) unemployment in, respectively, Southampton, Itchen, Southampton and Hampshire.

  Mr. Paice
  Information is not available for individual constituencies and local authorities. Information for Hampshire training and enterprise council is given in the table. It is not possible to give separate figures for those unemployed for 12 to 24 months and more than 24 months.
  29

  Employment Training Percentage of leavers in each outcome six months after leaving 1993–94 leavers in Hampshire TEC area

  Full-time work Per cent.

  Part-time work Per cent.

  Self employment Per cent.

  Further education and training1 Per cent.

  Unemployment2 Per cent.

  Unemployment duration before starting training

  6–12 months

  30

  9

  3

  7

  45

  Greater than 12 months

  16

  7

  2

  5

  60

  Source:

  ET/TFW national follow-up survey

  Notes:

  1 Includes those on another Government training programme.

  2 Includes those in a jobclub.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Rwandan Refugees
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting of African states which met in Nairobi earlier this month to consider the problem of Rwandan refugees who refuse to return home; and if he will make logistical support available to assist African states who seek to break the hold of the defeated Rwandan Government on the refugee camps in Zaire.

  Mr. Baldry
  We welcome the involvement of regional Governments in efforts to solve the problems of Rwandan refugees. We are supporting international action to secure the safe return of Rwandan refugees to their homes from the camps in Zaire and elsewhere and will look carefully at any firm proposals for logistical support when received.

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the Overseas Development Administration team that recently visited the Iraq-Iran border on the number of refugees moving from Iraq to Iran and the reasons for their movement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: It is estimated that some 645,000 Iraqi refugees are currently in Iran, of whom 500,000 arrived before 1991, and the remainder following the Gulf war. The ODA team visited the area bordering the southern Iraq marshes and focused on the needs of recent refugees. There are around 5,000 in the camp at Himmet on the Iranian side of the border. At present, fewer than 50 persons a week are succeeding in crossing the border. Many more, possibly up to 250,000, may be unable to reach the border because of Iraqi military action. Informants told the team that many people are fleeing not just because of Saddam Hussein's brutal suppression of opposition in the south and destruction of the marshlands, but also increasingly because of economic hardship due to the loss of their livelihood and human rights abuses in the whole of central and southern Iraq.

  Israel
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress being made in transferring British and multilateral development funds to the Palestinian national authority while securing the proper
  30
  accountability for the appropriate expenditure of those funds.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: British bilateral aid to the Palestinians in the current financial year is expected to amount to £6.5 million. Some £3.5 million comprises bilateral know-how projects and support for projects managed by British non-governmental organisations. These are subject to our normal monitoring and accounting procedures. The remaining £3 million was a contribution towards the net salaries of the Palestinian civilian police. The payment mechanism used, which included monitoring and audit of disbursements by the Crown Agents, ensured full accountability for our funds.

  In addition, we contribute to multilateral programmes including those of the World bank, the European Community and United Nations agencies. These funds are subject to the accountability requirements of the institutions concerned. Full details of multilateral assistance to the Palestinian authority are not available. The World bank estimates that since the Israeli-Palestinian declaration of principles in September 1993 it has disbursed $61 million from funds under its management. The European Community expects to have disbursed some 56 million ecu—£44 million—by the end of February.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being planned by the World bank and African development bank to block loans to Nigeria until democracy is restored.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: Under their articles of agreement, the World bank and African development bank are required to take only economic and technical considerations into account in their decisions on lending.

  South Africa
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his Department's specific policy to encourage small British firms to invest in South Africa.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The British investment in South Africa promotion scheme aims to help the development of small and medium enterprises in South Africa, particularly those from disadvantaged communities, by promoting and assisting new investment in South Africa by small British businesses.
  31
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the ODA is prepared to fund small British businesses in the field of information technology who wish to work in South Africa.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him today. Small British businesses in the field of information technology are eligible under the scheme.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is ODA policy to assist small British firms which wish to do business in South Africa; and what proportion of the budget for South Africa is geared towards funding small British businesses.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him today. The sum allocated for the British investment in South Africa promotion scheme is £2 million. We do not set spending targets for our aid programme to South Africa by sector or project.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the result of ethnic monitoring of the ownership of British firms that have received contracts from the ODA for work in the field of information technology in South Africa.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: ODA does not monitor the award of contracts to British firms under aid programme by ethnic ownership.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the ODA is prepared to fund small black British firms which have viable projects with black South African partners in the field of information technology in South Africa.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The selection of projects agreed for funding under the aid programme to South Africa is made in the context of the priority areas of focus we have agreed with the South African Government. Where projects involve the supply of British goods and services, we employ our normal competitive tendering arrangements.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much British development aid money in South Africa is being spent on(a) large British firms, (b) medium-size British firms and (c) small British firms in the field of information technology.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: We do not collate information on British firms, contracted under the aid programme, according to their size.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Extradition
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the changes in extradition procedures applying in Ireland of which he has been informed by the Irish Attorney-General; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have not been informed by the Irish Attorney-General of any such changes since the latest amendments to the extradition legislation of the Republic of Ireland which came into force on 22 August 1994. Any changes in their internal procedures are a matter for the Irish authorities.

  Brendan Smyth
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 448, to the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Thurrock in the matter of Brendan Smyth, if he will explain his reference to a holiday alleged to have been taken in Ireland by the hon. Member for Thurrock; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I was mistaken. I have written to the hon. Member.

EDUCATION

  Youth Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the spending on the youth service in each local education authority for(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94 and (d) 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  The table sets out net recurrent expenditure by LEAs in England on the youth service for 1991–92 and 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available. These figures are in actual terms and are drawn from LEAs' own returns of their expenditure to the Department of the Environment.

  Youth Service

  £000

  LEA

  Net recurrent expenditure 1991–92

  Net recurrent expenditure 1992–93

  Corporation of London

  46

  16

  Camden

  2,015

  1,791

  Greenwich

  1,613

  2,746

  Hackney

  2,549

  3,565

  Hammersmith

  1,771

  1,635

  Islington

  2,748

  2,311

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,712

  2,063

  Lambeth

  1,937

  1,850

  Lewisham

  992

  1,464

  Southwark

  2,747

  2,208

  Tower Hamlets

  4,639

  4,217

  Wands worth

  3,047

  3,116

  Westminster

  2,816

  2,623

  Barking

  593

  1,107

  Barnet

  1,295

  1,272

  Bexley

  1,076

  1,108

  Brent

  2,224

  2,733

  Bromley

  875

  981

  Croydon

  1,595

  1,657

  Ealing

  1,137

  1,007

  Enfield

  1,142

  1,108

  Haringey

  915

  804

  Harrow

  515

  621

  Havering

  1,067

  1,240

  Hillingdon

  904

  1,850

  Hounslow

  1,836

  2,036

  Kingston upon Thames

  782

  820

  Merton

  783

  889

  Newham

  1,670

  1,770

  Redbridge

  1,176

  1,311

  Richmond upon Thames

  723

  748

  Sutton

  765

  1,055

  Waltham Forest

  1,761

  1,866

  Birmingham

  2,987

  5,673

  Coventry

  1,600

  1,802

  Dudley

  1,022

  1,181

  33

  Youth Service

  £000

  LEA

  Net recurrent expenditure 1991–92

  Net recurrent expenditure 1992–93

  Sandwell

  1,070

  964

  Solihull

  528

  656

  Walsall

  3,116

  1,110

  Wolverhampton

  2,302

  2,420

  Knowsley

  2,124

  1,473

  Liverpool

  3,107

  3,635

  St. Helens

  733

  131

  Sefton

  1,352

  1,331

  Wirral

  2,082

  2,352

  Bolton

  1,231

  1,401

  Bury

  851

  1,088

  Manchester

  2,874

  3,057

  Oldham

  897

  1,096

  Rochdale

  1,507

  1,408

  Salford

  1,096

  937

  Stockport

  892

  1,024

  Tameside

  2,000

  2,255

  Trafford

  1,038

  1,141

  Wigan

  1,314

  1,289

  Barnsley

  468

  960

  Doncaster

  2,054

  1,832

  Rotherham

  1,358

  1,842

  Sheffield

  4,464

  4,423

  Bradford

  3,518

  3,494

  Calderdale

  710

  1,384

  Kirklees

  2,961

  3,380

  Leeds

  7,457

  3,199

  Wakefield

  1,252

  1,252

  Gateshead

  804

  880

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  823

  3,035

  North Tyneside

  659

  608

  South Tyneside

  462

  527

  Sunderland

  1,836

  1,688

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  2

  Avon

  5,548

  5,875

  Bedfordshire

  1,914

  2,302

  Berkshire

  3,830

  4,236

  Buckinghamshire

  4,174

  4,849

  Cambridgeshire

  3,120

  3,497

  Cheshire

  3,565

  3,328

  Cleveland

  4,460

  4,590

  Cornwall

  1,336

  1,638

  Cumbria

  1,371

  1,671

  Derbyshire

  10,956

  10,666

  Devon

  3,882

  3,854

  Dorset

  3,071

  3,605

  Durham

  1,749

  4,901

  East Sussex

  1,748

  2,009

  Essex

  7,405

  8,150

  Gloucestershire

  2,388

  2,816

  Hampshire

  3,654

  3,871

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,891

  2,136

  Hertfordshire

  4,122

  4,257

  Humberside

  5,499

  6,158

  Isle of Wight

  603

  752

  Kent

  5,660

  5,372

  Lancashire

  7,941

  8,510

  Leicestershire

  3,783

  5,318

  Lincolnshire

  1,558

  1,860

  Norfolk

  2,765

  2,902

  North Yorkshire

  2,527

  3,146

  Northamptonshire

  2,328

  2,258

  Northumberland

  2,949

  3,139

  Nottinghamshire

  6,780

  6,504

  Oxfordshire

  1,919

  2,267

  Shropshire

  2,512

  2,608

  Somerset

  1,416

  1,788

  Staffordshire

  5,746

  8,104

  Suffolk

  1,102

  1,155

  34

  Youth Service

  £000

  LEA

  Net recurrent expenditure 1991–92

  Net recurrent expenditure 1992–93

  Surrey

  3,712

  4,081

  Warwickshire

  1,469

  1,209

  West Sussex

  2,623

  2,861

  Wiltshire

  2,647

  4,089

  England Total

  251,739

  273,850

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to place the funding of the youth service on a statutory footing.

  Mr. Boswell
  No further legislation is planned. In the case of the youth service, local authorities have a need to decide, within the resources available to them, the appropriate level of provision in order to fulfil their duties deriving from sections 41 and 53 of the Education Act 1994. The Government do not determine this cenally.

  Mature Students Allowance
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what are the implications for students of the withdrawal of the mature students allowance starting in the academic session 1995–96;

  (2) what sources of finance are available to mature students; and what assessment she has made of the impact on the living standards of such students of the removal of the mature students allowance in 1995–96;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the withdrawal of the mature students allowance for students beginning higher education in 1995–96 following the paper "Main Rates of Student Grants and Loans for 1995–96".

  Mr. Boswell
  The older students allowance is currently payable under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations as part of a means-tested mandatory award for eligible students on designated courses. It is not targeted at any specific maintenance need which the student may have and its retention could not be justified in the present financial climate. It remains available to eligible students who are already on their courses, but not to new students starting courses on or after 1 September 1995. A range of other sources of financial support for older students exists depending upon their individual circumstances and the type of course they attend.

  Teachers Salaries
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each local eduction authority(a) the current annual cost of teacher salaries, (b) the cost of a 2 per cent. increase in teachers' pay for 1994–95 and (c) the cost of a 2.5 per cent. increase in teachers' pay.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out the 1992–93 expenditure recorded by LEAs in England on teaching staff salaries in nursery and primary, secondary and special schools. These are the latest available figures for LEA-maintained schools. To provide an estimate of the cost of pay awards, the 1992–93 figures have been uprated by the 1993 teachers' pay award, 1.5 per cent. to arrive at notional 1993–94 baselines on which cost of hypothetical increases in teachers' pay for 1994–95 of 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent. has been calculated. These estimates take no
  35
  account of changes in teacher numbers or other factors that will have affected the teachers' pay bill. The actual increase in teachers' pay 1994–95 was 2.9 per cent.

  LEA expenditure on teachers salaries

  Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special Schools

  1992–93 (actual) (£000)

  1992–93 (in 1993–94 terms) (£000)

  2 per cent, increase (£000)

  2.5per cent, increase £(000)

  Corporation of London

  428

  434

  9

  11

  Camden

  36,778

  37,330

  747

  933

  Greenwich

  57,441

  58,303

  1,166

  1,458

  Hackney

  42,157

  42,789

  856

  1,070

  Hammersmith

  25,144

  25,521

  510

  638

  Islington

  40,339

  40,944

  819

  1,024

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,969

  16,209

  324

  405

  Lambeth

  45,081

  45,757

  915

  1,144

  Lewisham

  43,850

  44,508

  890

  1,113

  Southwark

  43,037

  43,683

  874

  1,092

  Tower Hamlets

  57,235

  58,094

  1,162

  1,452

  Wandsworth

  41,485

  42,107

  842

  1,053

  Westminster

  29,064

  29,500

  590

  737

  Barking

  34,134

  34,646

  693

  866

  Barnet

  61,723

  62,649

  1,253

  1,566

  Bexley

  43,229

  43,877

  878

  1,097

  Brent

  48,628

  49,357

  987

  1,234

  Bromley

  37,052

  37,608

  752

  940

  Croydon

  56,379

  57,225

  1,144

  1,431

  Ealing

  48,569

  49,298

  986

  1,232

  Enfield

  57,216

  58,074

  1,161

  1,452

  Haringey

  46,196

  46,889

  938

  1,172

  Harrow

  38,397

  38,973

  779

  974

  Havering

  49,716

  50,462

  1,009

  1,262

  Hillingdon

  32,850

  33,343

  667

  834

  Hounslow

  48,372

  49,454

  989

  1,236

  Kingston upon Thames

  26,672

  27,072

  541

  677

  Merton

  34,380

  34,896

  698

  872

  Newham

  55,156

  55,983

  1,120

  1,400

  Redbridge

  48,178

  48,901

  978

  1,223

  Richmond upon Thames

  25,951

  26,340

  527

  659

  Sutton

  26,067

  26,458

  529

  661

  Waltham Forest

  49,215

  49,953

  999

  1,249

  Birmingham

  226,986

  230,391

  4,608

  5,760

  Coventry

  68,241

  69,265

  1,385

  1,732

  Dudley

  61,409

  62,330

  1,247

  1,558

  Sandwell

  67,116

  68,123

  1,362

  1,703

  Solihull

  44,663

  45,333

  907

  1,133

  Walsall

  57,957

  58,826

  1,177

  1,471

  Wolverhampton

  52,823

  53,615

  1,072

  1,340

  Knowsley

  34,957

  35,481

  710

  887

  Liverpool

  106,122

  107,714

  2,154

  2,693

  St. Helens

  40,656

  41,266

  825

  1,032

  Sefton

  58,695

  59,575

  1,192

  1,489

  Wirral

  71,520

  72,593

  1,452

  1,815

  Bolton

  58,731

  59,612

  1,192

  1,490

  Bury

  33,786

  34,293

  686

  857

  Manchester

  98,210

  99,683

  1,994

  2,492

  Oldham

  57,609

  58,473

  1,169

  1,462

  Rochdale

  44,279

  44,943

  899

  1,124

  Salford

  51,731

  52,507

  1,050

  1,313

  Stockport

  58,114

  58,986

  1,180

  1,475

  Tameside

  46,054

  46,745

  935

  1,169

  Trafford

  39423

  40,116

  802

  1,003

  Wigan

  72,263

  73,347

  1,467

  1,834

  Bamsley

  40,094

  40,695

  814

  1,017

  Doncaster

  61,082

  61,998

  1,240

  1,550

  Rotherham

  59,486

  60,378

  1,208

  1,509

  Sheffield

  95,070

  96,496

  1,930

  2,412

  Bradford

  113,897

  115,605

  2,312

  2,890

  Calderdale

  40,476

  41,083

  822

  1,027

  Kirklees

  83,022

  84,267

  1,685

  2,107

  36

  LEA expenditure on teachers' salaries

  Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Special Schools

  1992–93 (actual) (£000)

  1992–93 (in 1993–94 terms) (£000)

  2 per cent, increase (£000)

  2.5 per cent, increase £(000)

  Leeds

  144,719

  146,890

  2,938

  3.672

  Wakefield

  65,138

  66,115

  1,322

  1,653

  Gates head

  41,420

  42,.041

  841

  1,051

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  54,297

  55,111

  1,102

  1,378

  North Tyneside

  43,.475

  44,127

  883

  1,103

  South Tyneside

  31,785

  32,262

  645

  807

  Sunderland

  64,315

  65,280

  1,306

  1,632

  Isles of Scilly

  599

  608

  12

  15

  Avon

  179,711

  182,407

  3,648

  4,560

  Bedfordshire

  116,753

  118,504

  2,370

  2,963

  Berkshire

  133,913

  135,922

  2,718

  3,398

  Buckinghamshire

  116,645

  118,395

  2,368

  2,960

  Cambridgeshire

  121,295

  123,114

  2,462

  3,078

  Cheshire

  193,359

  196,259

  3,925

  4,906

  Cleveland

  136,127

  138,169

  2,763

  3,454

  Cornwall

  86,734

  88,035

  1,761

  2,201

  Cumbria

  94,791

  96,213

  1,924

  2,405

  Derbyshire

  187,005

  189,810

  3,796

  4,745

  Devon

  179,197

  181,885

  3,638

  4,547

  Dorest

  99,774

  101,271

  2,025

  2,532

  Durham

  122,305

  124,140

  2,483

  3,103

  East Sussex

  115,326

  117,056

  2,341

  2,926

  Essex

  279,683

  283,878

  5,678

  7,097

  Gloucestershire

  87,598

  88,912

  1,778

  2,223

  Hampshire

  281,689

  285,914

  5,718

  7,148

  Hereford and Worcester

  133,454

  135,456

  2,709

  3,386

  Hertfordshire

  195,847

  198,785

  3,976

  4,970

  Humberside

  184,702

  187,473

  3,749

  4,687

  Isle of Wight

  24,255

  24,619

  492

  615

  Kent

  257,412

  261,273

  5,225

  6,532

  Lancashire

  290,367

  294,723

  5,894

  7,368

  Leicestershire

  192,009

  194,889

  3,898

  4,872

  Lincolnshire

  94,889

  96,312

  1,926

  2,408

  Norfolk

  129,927

  131,876

  2,638

  3,297

  North Yorkshire

  137,936

  140,005

  2,800

  3,500

  Northamptonshire

  117,669

  119,434

  2,389

  2,986

  Northumberland

  62,703

  63,644

  1,273

  1,591

  Nottinghamshire

  204,216

  207,279

  4,146

  5,182

  Oxfordshire

  102,211

  103,744

  2,075

  2,594

  Shropshire

  87,570

  88,884

  1,778

  2,222

  Somerset

  83,851

  85,109

  1,702

  2,128

  Staffordshire

  201,758

  204,784

  4,096

  5,120

  Suffolk

  126,106

  127,998

  2,560

  3,200

  Surrey

  151,970

  154,250

  3,085

  3,856

  Warwickshire

  90,879

  92,242

  1,845

  2,306

  West Sussex

  128,140

  130,062

  2,601

  3,252

  Wiltshire

  105,215

  106,793

  2,136

  2,670

  England Total

  9,371,750

  9,788,184

  195,764

  244,705

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the highest and lowest maximum discretionary awards provided by local education authorities in England for(a) further education students and (b) higher education students.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The provision of discretionary awards is a matter for local education authorities which determine the distribution and size of awards in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Special Needs
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has to develop a national strategy for special needs students in the 16-plus age range to supply a national progression for them after statutory schooling; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Education Act 1993, the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 already provide a comprehensive framework for the progression of students with special educational needs from schools to post-16 education, training or employment.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school playing fields there were in each local education authority in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out data from the Sports Council's register of recreational land, giving the number of school sports pitches by local education authority in England as at July 1994. Information for earlier years is unavailable.

  Not all local education authorities have submitted full returns and the figures should be interpreted with caution. The register excludes playing fields on sites with an area of less than 0.4 hectares, so a number of small school playing fields are not recorded.

  Local Education Authorities

  Sports pitches

  Avon

  263

  Barking and Dagenham

  288

  Barnet

  22

  Barnsley

  194

  Bedfordshire

  451

  Berkshire

  509

  Bexley

  0

  Birmingham

  216

  Bolton

  363

  Bradford

  309

  Brent

  36

  Bromley

  0

  B ucki nghamshire

  286

  Bury

  245

  Calderdale

  96

  Cambridgeshire

  329

  Camden

  64

  Cheshire

  1,618

  City of London

  0

  Cleveland

  733

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  664

  Coventry

  545

  Croydon

  332

  Cumbria

  599

  Derbyshire

  807

  Devon

  447

  Doncaster

  649

  Dorset

  421

  Dudley

  145

  Durham

  656

  Ealing

  98

  East Sussex

  233

  Enfield

  366

  Essex

  759

  Gateshead

  120

  Gloucestershire

  551

  Greenwich

  49

  Hackney

  6

  38

  Local Education Authorities

  Sports pitches

  Hammersmith

  12

  Hampshire

  753

  Haringey

  14

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  86

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,107

  Hertfordshire

  1,633

  Hillingdon

  97

  Hounslow

  43

  Humberside

  838

  Isle of Wight

  104

  Islington

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  Kent

  1,579

  Kingston upon Thames

  69

  Kirklees

  104

  Knowsley

  157

  Lambeth

  10

  Lancashire

  1,816

  Leeds

  481

  Leicstershire

  791

  Lewisham

  2

  Lincolnshire

  505

  Liverpool

  245

  Manchester

  148

  Merton

  30

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  151

  Newham

  47

  Norfolk

  569

  North Yorkshire

  822

  North Tyneside

  175

  Northamptonshire

  401

  Northumberland

  595

  Nottinghamshire

  1,443

  Oldham

  168

  Oxfordshire

  496

  Redbridge

  133

  Richmond upon Thames

  101

  Rochdale

  314

  Rotherham

  385

  Salford

  226

  Sandwell

  90

  Sefton

  167

  Sheffield

  521

  Shropshire

  405

  Solihull

  205

  Somerset

  261

  South Tyneside

  112

  Southwark

  3

  St. Helens

  123

  Staffordshire

  772

  Stockport

  397

  Suffolk

  575

  Sunderland

  173

  Surrey

  568

  Sutton

  13

  Tameside

  269

  Tower Hamlets

  3

  Trafford

  209

  Wakefield

  292

  Walsall

  283

  Waltham Forest

  5

  Wandsworth

  29

  Warwickshire

  384

  West Sussex

  960

  Westminster

  0

  Wigan

  263

  Wiltshire

  294

  Wirral

  226

  Wolverhampton

  278

  Total

  37,799

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the basis for action by the Further Education Funding Council for England and against the governing bodies of colleges; and if she will make a statement on the adequacy of those powers.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under section 5(7) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, the Further Education Funding Council for England may make any grants, loans or other payments to the governing body subject to terms and conditions which enable the council to require the repayment in whole or in part of sums paid by the council if any of the terms and conditions are not complied with and require the payment of interest in respect of any sums not so repaid. The council is required to keep this power under review. The instruments of government for further education corporations also require the statement of accounts to comply with any directions given by the council.

  In the event of mismanagement, breach of duty or unreasonable actions by a governing body, responsibility rests with my "right" hon. Friend. She is satisfied that the range of powers available to her and the council are, taken together, adequate.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the absenteeism rate for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing administration does not collect statistics on absenteeism centrally.

  Comprehensive sick leave records are not available for 1991, 1992 and 1993; details could be completed only at disproportionate cost.

  In the case of ODA, the figures for sick leave are available but will take a little time to produce. I shall write to the hon. Member when they are available.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to assist with the establishment of an international criminal tribunal with regard to militia murders in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of Security Council resolution 955 of 8 November 1994 which established an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda.

  We have recently indicated to the prosecutor of the tribunal that we will be contributing up to £200,000 to fund UK staff and to provide equipment for his office.

  UN Social Development Programme
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the formal representations made by Her Majesty's Government since 1993 in the preparation of each of the three drafts of the 40
  UN declaration and action programme on social development, giving the dates of each.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have participated actively in each of the four preparatory committee meetings held in New York to agree the documentation for the world summit for social development. The dates for these are: 1 to 11 February 1994, 22 August to 2 September 1994, 24 to 28 October 1994—an intersessional meeting—and 16 to 27 January 1995. We have also been very active in the many EU co-ordination meetings that have taken place in Brussels and New York, putting forward many suggestions for strong texts on the three core issues which have been taken up by the EU as a whole.

  East Timor
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he supports United Nations policy that Indonesia should resolve the dispute over East Timor through a referendum of the people of East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We support the UN Secretary-General's efforts to promote a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement to the question of East Timor, taking account of the wishes and interests of the East Timorese. He informed the Foreign Ministers of Portugal and Indonesia on 9 January of his intention to facilitate the convening of an "all-inclusive infra-Fast Timorese dialogue" to help establish an atmosphere conducive to achieving a solution, which we welcome. The question of a referendum did not arise.

  Chinese Foreign Minister
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a visit from the Chinese Foreign Minister to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We would welcome a visit to the United Kingdom by the Chinese Foreign Minister but, as yet, no dates have been discussed with the Chinese Government.

  Harjit Singh
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the report on the hearing of 26 November 1994 into the case of Harjit Singh has now been prepared by his officers in the high commission in New Delhi.

  Mr. Baldry
  We understand that the hearing in the case of Harjit Singh, which was scheduled for 26 November was postponed yet again. The next hearing is scheduled for 28 January.

  Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has yet received an invitation to help Kenya adopt a new constitution suited to multi-party democracy; and what has been his response to this request for assistance.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have not yet received a formal request from the Kenyan Government to provide an expert to help take forward the process of constitutional reform. If we do, we shall give it careful consideration.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many opposition leaders are currently in prison in Nigeria; and what representations he has made on this issue to the Nigerian Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: A number of political leaders are currently in detention. With our European Union partners we have made several representations to the Nigerian Government calling for the release or proper trial of those detained.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which specific human rights abuses in Nigeria he has raised with the Government of that country.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: With our European Union partners we have called for the release or early trial of all political detainees, and for the lifting of travel restrictions on political activists. We have deplored repressive decrees issued by the Nigerian Government, including the proscriptions of media houses and increases in the power to order detention without trial. We continue to raise these issues with the Nigerian Government, with our partners and bilaterally, raising individual cases of abuse wherever appropriate.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which Nigerian military or security personnel he has denied visas in line with European Union policy.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: It is not our policy to reveal details of individual visa applications. Since June 1993, however, in line with agreed European Union measures against Nigeria, visas have not been issued to members of the military and their dependants, except in a small number of exceptional cases.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the impact on Nigeria of the decision by European Foreign Ministers to suspend co-operation in the military sphere with the Nigerian Government.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: Since the European Union measures against the Nigerian military were announced in 1993, Nigerian military personnel have ceased to attend military training courses in the European Union. The British military assistance team to the Nigerian national war college was withdrawn in June 1993.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arms sales have taken place to Nigeria since the annulment of the June 1993 election.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: It has been the policy of successive Governments not to give details of individual arms sales. Information on transfers of major equipment is contained in the UN register of conventional arms, copies of the United Kingdom return to which are in the library.

  In December 1993, with EU partners, we announced that all new applications for export licences for defence equipment would be reviewed, on a case-by-case basis, with the presumption of denial.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there has 42
  been consideration of an embargo on the importation of Nigerian oil until democracy is restored in that country.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The European Union measures against Nigeria will be reviewed, or strengthened, in the light of progress towards a return to democratic civilian rule. All options will, of course, be considered.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by the United Nations Commission for Human Rights to investigate human rights abuses in Nigeria.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The 51st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will meet from 30 January to 10 March. The EU will be making a strong statement about its concerns regarding human rights abuses in Nigeria.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the salary paid to the prisons ombudsman;

  (2) how many staff work in the prisons ombudsman's department; what is their role; and what salaries they are paid.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The prisons ombudsman is paid at a rate equivalent to the civil service grade 5 salary scale which ranges from £38,341 to £56,953.

  The prisons ombudsman's office currently has ten staff, two assistant prisons ombudsmen, five higher executive officers, two administrative officers and a personal secretary. Their role is to assist with investigations of complaints from prisoners about their treatment in prison. The salary scales for the grades are:

  Assistant Prisons Ombudsman (Grade 7) £25,837–£40,012

  Higher Executive Officer £16,000–£21,564

  Administrative Officer £9,393–£12,450

  Personal Secretary £13,322–£16,320

  A third assistant prisons ombudsman and another higher executive officer will join the staff in January.

  Prisoners (Unlocked Hours)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisoners held in establishments at(a) Doncaster, (b) Lindholme, (c) Wolds, (d) Wakefield, (e) Durham women's wing and (f) New Hall, Wakefield, prisons, were unlocked for a total of at least 12 hours on the last week day of each month for the last six months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 18 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent. Question about the percentage of prisoners held in Doncaster, Lindholme, Wolds, Wakefield, Durham women's wing and New

  43
  Hall prisons, who were unlocked for a total of at least twelve hours on the last weekday of each month for the last six months.
  All prisoners at Doncaster, Lindholme, Wolds, Durham women's wing and New Hall were unlocked for at least twelve hours on the

  Average number of hours unlocked per prisoner

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Durham

  12.75

  12.75

  12.75

  12.75

  12.75

  12.75

  Lindholme

  15.5

  15.5

  15.5

  15.5

  15.5

  15.5

  New Hall

  12.0

  12.0

  12.0

  12.0

  12.0

  12.0

  Wakefield

  11.6

  11.6

  11.0

  11.6

  11.6

  11.6

  Wolds

  13.75

  13.75

  13.75

  13.75

  13.75

  13.75

  Doncaster

  14.5

  14.5

  14.5

  14.5

  14.5

  14.5

  Secure Units
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the number of prisoners being held in special secure units in England and Wales on 10 January;

  (2) under what security category each prisoner is classified who is at present being held in a special secure unit;

  (3) what is the number of special secure units in prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about special secure units in prisons in England and Wales.
  There are three special secure units in prisons in England and Wales, at Full Sutton, Parkhurst and Whitemoor prisons.
  At present only the unit at Full Sutton is in use. On 10 January this year it held eight prisoners, all of whom are category A (exceptional escape risk).

  Prison Education Officers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison education officers were employed in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of prison Education Officers employed each year since 1991.
  Teaching staff, are not and have not been Prison Service employees. The Prison Service does not maintain central records of the numbers of staff deployed to prison Education Departments by the various education providers.

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prison officers and (b) prison auxiliaries were employed in each year since 1990.
  44
  last weekday of each month for the last six months. Prisoners at Wakefield are currently unlocked for 11.6 hours on weekdays.
  More detailed information is given in the following table:

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prison officers and prison auxiliaries employed by the Prison Service since 1990.
  I attach a table showing the number of prison officers and prison auxiliaries employed by the Service at 1 April each year since 1990. This is with the exception of 1991 where the figures are for 1 October, as April figures are unavailable.
  The figures for prison officers include the figures for senior officers and principal officers. All specialist officers and prison officers in initial training are also included.

  Year

  Prison officers

  Prison auxiliaries

  1990

  20,785

  994

  19911

  21,421

  1220

  1992

  23,029

  1278

  1993

  23,994

  1436

  1994

  23,756

  1621

  19952

  24,237

  1840

  1 As at 1 October

  2 As at 1 January

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absenteeism rate for the United Kingdom Passport Agency in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Figures are available only for absenteeism due to sickness in the United Kingdom Passport Agency. The information is recorded in terms of days absence per staff member per year and is as follows:

  Days

  1991

  16.69

  1992

  15.96

  1993

  15.01

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absenteeism rate for Her Majesty's Prison Service in 1991, 1992 and 1993.
  45
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the absenteeism rate for Her Majesty's Prison Service in 1991, 1992 and 1993.
  Figures are not collected centrally on absenteeism, but we do have information on sick absence, which accounts for virtually all absence from work other than leave. The average number of days sick absence per uniformed prison officer per year in 1991–92 was 13.97; in 1992–93 it was 12.76; and in 1993–94 it was 13.05. These statistics relate to basic grade prison officers, senior officers and principal officers who together comprise nearly two-thirds of all Prison Service staff.
  The sick absence of other staff is recorded by the Home Office, but cannot be separately identified for Prison Service staff.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absenteeism rate for the Home Office in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Howard
  Figures are not collected centrally on absenteeism.

  The average number of working days lost through sick absence per staff year in the Home Office, including its agencies was as follows:

  1991–9.9

  1992–9.0

  1993–10.6

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absenteeism rate for the Forensic Science Service in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Forensic Science Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. Janet Thompson to Mr David Chidgey, dated 23 January 1995:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about the absenteeism rate for the Forensic Science Service in 1991, 1992 and 1993. As you know, the arrangement now is that the Chief Executive of an Executive Agency, with the agreement of the Minister, replies to Members of Parliament on operational matters. I am therefore replying on behalf of the Forensic Science Service.
  The average number of days sick absence per member of staff per year in 1992–93 was 6.4, and in 1993–94 was 6.61. These figures include long term sick absences.
  The figures for 1991–92 were recorded centrally by the Home Office and cannot be identified separately.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the absenteeism rate for the Fire Service College in 1991, 1992, and 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the chief executive of the Fire Service College, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from N. K. Finlayson to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 19 January 1995:
  Your Parliamentary Question asking for information about the absenteeism rate for the Fire Service College in 1991, 1992 and 1993 has been referred to me by the Home Secretary for reply, as the matter falls within my delegated authority.
  I regret that the information for the College is not available in the form requested for the dates requested. The College became an Executive Agency on 1 April 1992. Prior to that date and since,
  46
  details of sickness absences have been included as part of the overall figures for the Home Office.
  For the 12 months ending in September 1994 the average number of sick days per member of staff was 7.7 days.

  Prisoners (Paracetamol)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policy guidelines are issued to prison staff on the prescribing and administration of paracetamol to inmates; and what variations exist between different prisons.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John Gunnell dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning the policy guidelines on the prescribing and administration of paracetamol.
  There are no specific policy guidelines issued on the prescribing of individual drugs with the exception of controlled drugs. Each prison is supervised by a qualified pharmacist and arrangements for the distribution of drugs is agreed between the pharmacist and the prison medical officer, according to local requirements.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training programmes are available for staff at Doncaster prison.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply, in the absence of the Director General from the office to your recent Question about training programmes available to staff at Doncaster prison.
  All Prisoner Custody Officers (PCOs) undergo initial training to a specification approved by the Prison Service before certification. I am advised by the Director of Doncaster prison that the following in-service training programmes are provided:
  Weekly Continuation Training of Prisoner Custody Officers, including security practices, control and restraint, first aid, suicide awareness, hostage incidents and anti-bullying.
  Specialist Courses for Prisoner Custody Officers include: hostage negotiations, the escort and movement of category A prisoners, drug testing and identification, use of short duration breathing apparatus, sentence calculation, drug dog handler training and dealing with young offenders.
  Training for non-Prisoner Custody Officers, who have each received a minimum of forty hours training including personal security, prisoner and premises security, race relations, health and hygiene and being first on the scene at a hostage incident. Management Training, which included a specialist senior management course prior to the opening of Doncaster. Operational directors have attended the Command of Serious; Incidents course at the Prison Service College.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners can be accommodated in the health care centre at Doncaster prison.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  47
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Doncaster prison.
  The Health Care Centre at Doncaster can accommodate 59 patients. Twenty-seven places are in three wards, 12 are in double rooms and the remainder in single rooms.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what numerical criteria were contained in the contract between the Home Office and the Premier Prison Service Ltd. at Doncaster; and how many(a) escapes from court, (b) escapes from the prison, (c) grievance resolutions, (d) assaults on prisoners and (e) assaults on staff there were in the first six months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply, in the absence of the Director General from the office to your recent Question about the contract with Premier Prison Service Limited to run Doncaster prison.
  The contract for managing Doncaster prison, a copy of which is held in the House of Commons library, specifies a range of performance criteria, against which the performance of Premier Prison Service is measured.
  The following are the principal criteria:
  Escapes from the prison: there should be no more than two by the end of the first year of operation and thereafter no more than one in each year of operation.
  Escapes from escort: there should be no more than eight in each year for the first three years and no more than six in the fourth year.
  Time out of cell: prisoners on normal location should be out of their cell for a minimum 12 hours per day.
  A positive regime: prisoners on normal location should be able to participate in at least a minimum of 12 hours each day of regime activities, including education: adult prisoners should have access to a minimum of six hours of education and training each week, young prisoners under 17 should be provided with 15 hours of education and training each week.
  Visits: the statutory minimum as set out in Prison Rules must be met.
  Grievances: ninety per cent of grievances capable of resolution at prison level must be resolved within seven days.
  Assaults: there should be no more than 148 assaults on prisoners by the end of the first year of operation, and no more than 77 assaults on staff by the end of the first year of operation. The contractor will be in default when both of these targets are exceeded.
  In general, Premier Prison Service do not have a contractual obligation to supervise prisoners at court, since the court escort and custody service in that area has been contracted to Group 4 Court Services Ltd. They are, however, responsible for Category A prisoners taken from Doncaster prison to court. None has escaped from the custody of their escorting officers at court, or on journeys to an from court.
  There has been one escape from Doncaster. On 10 August 1994, a prisoner escaped through the visitors exit with the help from a visitor. The prisoner was recaptured and criminal proceedings are pending.
  There have been 546 resolved grievances in the first six months of operation of Doncaster prison.
  At 31 December 1994, the latest date for which figures are available there had been 38 proven assaults by prisoners against other prisoners and 93 proven assaults against staff.

  Prisoners (Shopping)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many private shopping visits were made by prison officers for inmates in prisons in England and Wales during the week of 2 to 7 January.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about private shopping trips made by prison officers for inmates during the week of 2 to 7 January.
  On 19 December the Home Secretary announced in the House that the practice of prison officers going shopping at the behest of prisoners had stopped. Purchases will take place only through the prison canteen. No private shopping trips by prison officers were reported during the week of 2 to 7 January.

  Prisoners (Phone Calls)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the prison policy followed in prisons in England and Wales where private phone calls made by inmates can be paid from public expenditure.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the policy followed in prisons in England and Wales where private phone calls made by prisoners can be paid from public expense.
  Following the installation of cardphones in all establishments, prisoners are required to purchase phonecards from their earnings or private cash to make personal calls. Prisoners are only allowed access to an official telephone to make urgent legal and compassionate calls. Prisoners are expected to pay for all calls using an official telephone, unless the governor is satisfied that the prisoner has insufficient funds to meet the cost of the call or the cost is so small as to not justify its collection.

  Prison Security
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the policy of his Department to instruct prison governors and chief officers to visit every area of the prison for which they are responsible on a daily basis.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about instructions on managers visiting the areas for which they are responsible.
  Under Standing Order 3A, the governor exercises a close and constant supervision of the prison. All parts of the prison where prisoners are located, including the hospital, are visited and inspected daily by the governing governor or another of the

  49
  establishment's governors. The remainder of the prison will be inspected by such other managers as the governor designates.

  Prison Governors Association
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the chairman and officers of the Prison Governors Association.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Home Secretary has no present plans to meet the chairman and officers of the PGA, nor has the association made such a request. I last met with the Prison Governors Association on 15 November 1994.

  Solitary Confinement
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have spent more than a total of one month in solitary confinement in the latest year for which figures are available; and what is the extra cost per prisoner per month of solitary confinement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners have spent more than a total of one month in solitary confinement in the latest year for which figures are available; and what is the extra cost per prisoner per month of solitary confinement.
  No prisoners in England and Wales are kept in solitary confinement, which is a form of punishment designed to deprive a prisoner of all human contact.
  Under Prison Rule 43, however, and Young Offender Institution Rule 46, governors may remove prisoners from association with other prisoners for the maintenance of good order and discipline or in their own interests. Information is not available in the form requested, but on 30 June 1994 the number of prisoners segregated under Prison Rule 43 and Y01 Rule 46 were:

  30 June 1994

  Good order and discipline:

  310, of which 152 for a period of more than one month;

  In own interests:

  887 held in rule 43 units or segregation unit on rule 43/46.

  Information on the cost of holding prisoners under these Rules is not available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases he is aware of involving persons released on bail from Immigration Act detention by the Immigration Appeals Authority who have subsequently absconded or otherwise failed to comply with the terms of bail; and in what time period these cases arose.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Data Centre, Bootle
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the privatisation of the data centre in Bootle; what redundancies have ensued; if these redundancies were referred to by the Sema Group in its bid to take over the running of the centre; and what funding his Department provided towards the cost of redundancies.

  Mr. Howard
  Home Office administrative information technology services have been the subject of a market test under the Government's "Competing for Quality" programme. As previously announced in reply to a question on 19 July 1994,Official Report, column 176, following the conclusion of the test, it was decided to award a contract for the supply of these services to Sema Group plc. Its bid was judged to represent best value for money following an evaluation on the basis of the full costs to the Home Office of the competing bids.

  With some limited exceptions, staff in the undertaking were transferred to Sema Group under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The Home Office did not make any staff redundant: subsequent redundancies by Sema Group are a matter for the company.

  In submitting its bid, Sema Group made it clear that the number of staff required for the provision of services under the contract would be dependent on the outcome of an operational review which they would conduct, if awarded the contract.

  All payments to Sema Group in connection with the services subject to the market test, including payments associated with their transitional and restructuring costs, have been made in accordance with the contract for the supply of IT services, the precise details of which are commercial in confidence.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are being made by the Data Protection Registrar to ensure use of the Welsh language in its operation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Data Protection Registrar tells me that application forms for registration are currently available in Welsh; that entry on to the register resulting from a Welsh language application is made available to the applicant in Welsh; that the letter confirming registration is also in Welsh; that arrangements are made for letters received in Welsh to be answered in Welsh; and the Office's Wales-based investigation officer is able to conduct interviews and provide oral information through the medium of Welsh.

  I understand that the registrar will be reviewing these arrangements before preparing a plan for submission to the Welsh Language Board in accordance with the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993.

  Sentences
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the proportion of defendants who received(a) custodial and (b) non-custodial sentences following conviction by magistrates in England and Wales in each year since 1988;
  51
  (2) How many persons were sentenced to a term of imprisonment following conviction by magistrates in England and Wales in each year since 1988.

  Number and percentage of defendants sentenced at magistrates' courts by year, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales

  1988 Number

  %

  1989 Number

  %

  1990 Number

  %

  11991 Number

  %

  11992 Number

  %

  11993 Number

  %

  Indictable offences

  Total sentenced

  289,060

  100

  250,967

  100

  256,211

  100

  252,518

  100

  243,447

  100

  239,851

  100

  Immediate custody

  19,068

  7

  13,107

  5

  11,259

  4

  13,050

  5

  11,796

  5

  13,898

  6

  Non-custodial sentence

  269,992

  93

  237,860

  95

  244,952

  96

  239,468

  95

  231,651

  95

  225,953

  94

  Summary non-motoring offences

  Total sentenced

  454,595

  100

  469,312

  100

  464,061

  100

  451,210

  100

  468,928

  100

  451,239

  100

  Immediate custody

  2,569

  1

  3,992

  1

  3,607

  1

  4,221

  1

  3,486

  1

  3,218

  1

  Non-custodial sentence

  452,026

  99

  465,320

  99

  460,454

  99

  446,989

  99

  465,442

  99

  448,021

  99

  Summary motoring offences

  Total sentenced

  713,920

  100

  720,988

  100

  703,284

  100

  711,889

  100

  722,164

  100

  663,963

  100

  Immediate custody

  2,092

  —

  4,541

  1

  4,812

  1

  5,772

  1

  5698

  1

  7,8900

  1

  Non-custodial sentence

  711,828

  100

  716,447

  99

  698,472

  99

  706,117

  99

  716,466

  99

  656,063

  99

  All offences

  Total sentenced

  1,456,925

  100

  1,441,267

  100

  1,423,556

  100

  1,415,617

  100

  1,434,539

  100

  1,355,053

  100

  Immediate custody

  23,729

  2

  21,640

  2

  19,678

  1

  23,043

  2

  20,980

  1

  25,016

  2

  Non-custodial sentence

  1,433,196

  98

  1,419,627

  98

  1,403,878

  99

  1,392,574

  98

  1,413,559

  99

  1,330,037

  98

  1 Improvements in the data collection methods used by the Metropolitan police district have led to increases in the number sentenced in these years.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply of 10 January,Official Report, column 89, how many of the offers of awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority under the tariff scheme in November have led to appeals.

  Mr. Maclean
  Seven.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many payments were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in(a) November 1994 and (b) December 1994 in the bands (i) £1,000 to £4,999, (ii) £5,000 to £9,999 and (iii) £10,000 and above.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not currently available.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offers of payment were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in September, October and December 1994; and in which of the tariff bands these awards fell.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority made 605 offers of award in the following bands:

  Awards offered

  Band

  September

  October

  November

  1

  9

  77

  68

  2

  1

  8

  18

  3

  8

  48

  95

  4

  —

  4

  9

  5

  5

  20

  40

  6

  —

  5

  7

  52
  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table. The 1994 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Awards offered

  Band

  September

  October

  November

  7

  9

  44

  43

  8

  1

  4

  11

  9

  1

  6

  4

  10

  1

  4

  5

  11

  —

  3

  6

  12

  3

  15

  11

  13

  1

  1

  1

  14

  —

  —

  1

  15

  —

  1

  —

  16

  —

  2

  1

  17

  1

  1

  1

  19

  —

  —

  1

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many awards were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board made 36,638 awards in 1992–93 and 40,635 in 1993–94.

  Prison Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Prison Service's annual report to be published; and what is the reason for its delay.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  53
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the publication of the Prison Service's Annual Report and the reason for its delay.
  Although it relates to a past period, publication of the 1993–94 Prison Service Annual Report has been delayed to allow the Report to be updated to reflect the events at Whitemoor and Parkhurst. The report is expected to be published soon.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what special instructions he has given to the assistant chief constable of Essex police with regard to the export of livestock through Brightlingsea.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The policing of such events is an operational matter for the chief constable.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 495, concerning overseas travel at public expense by spouses of Ministers what proportion of the spouses' visit was dedicated to official visits and business.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: On the two occasions concerned, programmes were drawn up for the spouse by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with practically all the spouse's time dedicated to official visits and duties.

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the distribution of section 11 funds for 1995–96.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: Allocations for existing projects which will still be running in 1995–96 should be notified to grant recipients shortly. We hope to announce the outcome of applications for new projects starting in 1995–96 by the end of February.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving prisoners were sentenced, pursuant to(a) section 53(1) and (b) section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933; and how many of these prisoners are now serving their sentences in adult prisons and young offenders' institutions, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 January 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many serving prisoners were sentenced

  Traffic Area

  1 April 1989

  1 April 1990

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  Present

  North Eastern (Newcastle)

  46.5

  42.0

  6.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Eastern (Leeds)

  66.0

  63.0

  61.0

  63.0

  60.5

  60.5

  58.0

  North Western (Manchester)

  104.0

  96.5

  86.5

  71.5

  70.0

  70.0

  67.0

  54

  pursuant to (a) section 53(1) and (b) section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933; and how many of these prisoners are now serving their sentences in adult prisons and young offenders' institutions, respectively.
  On 30 November 1994, 54 young offenders were held under section 53(1); all apart from two were held in young offender institutions or a remand centre. Nine young offenders were held under section 53(2) life; of these one male was held in an adult establishment. 353 young offenders were held for determinate sentence under section 53(2) of whom 26 were held in adult institutions. Sentenced young offenders include some 21 year olds.

TRANSPORT

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to include a measure of employment effects when assessing the local impacts of new roads.

  Mr. Watts
  The Department's current appraisal methods do not attempt to measure the indirect local economic impacts of road schemes, such as employment. A succession of studies has concluded that to include a measurement of indirect effects in addition to the direct economic benefits risks double counting.

  Drivers' Hours
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will urge the European Council of Ministers to tighten regulations governing drivers' hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We see no need at present for any significant change in the European Community rules on driving hours and rest periods. However, we do attach importance to more consistent and rigorous application and enforcement of existing rules throughout the Community. The Transport Council expressly agreed that objective during the German presidency. With a view to strengthening enforcement, the European Commission has published a draft regulation proposing an addition to the tachograph that would require the digital recording of drivers' hours on smart cards.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in each of the last five years for which figures are available, how many offences were identified by the vehicle inspectorate in relation to drivers' hours in(a) Derbyshire and (b) North Yorkshire; and what percentage these figures represent of the overall national figures.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Licensing Authority Staff
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many licensing authority staff were employed by the licensing authorities by traffic area on(a) 1 April for each year since 1989 and (b) at present.

  Mr. Norris
  The table gives total numbers of staff employed in each traffic area office in support of the traffic commissioners-licensing authorities.
  55

  Traffic Area

  1 April 1989

  1 April 1990

  1 April 1991

  1 April 1992

  1 April 1993

  1 April 1994

  Present

  West Midland (Birmingham)

  77.0

  73.5

  64.0

  47.5

  47.5

  50.0

  46.0

  Eastern (Nottingham)

  60.0

  59.5

  36.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastern (Cambridge)

  57.0

  55.0

  46.5

  64.0

  63.0

  60.0

  56.5

  South Wales (Cardiff)

  46.0

  37.0

  31.0

  28.5

  28.5

  30.0

  29.0

  Western (Bristol)

  63.0

  62.0

  67.5

  58.5

  57.5

  56.S

  54.0

  Metropolitan (London)

  112.5

  104.5

  74.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Eastern (Eastbourne)

  86.0

  84.0

  68.5

  63.5

  61.0

  61.0

  56.0

  Scottish (Edinburgh)

  80.0

  77.0

  71.0

  61.0

  61.0

  58.0

  44.5

  798.0

  754.0

  613.0

  457.5

  449.0

  446.0

  411.0

  Goods Vehicle Operator Licences
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many goods vehicle operator licences were(a) revoked, (b) suspended, (c) curtailed and (d) subject to formal penal warnings by traffic area in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures requested are contained in the appendices to the annual reports of the licensing authorities which are available in the Library of the House.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many public inquiries were held for goods vehicle operator licences for each of the last five years for which figures are available by traffic area; and if he will give, in each case, the reason for the public inquiry.

  Mr. Norris
  The figures requested are contained in the appendices to the annual reports of the licensing authorities which are available in the Library of the House. To set out the reason for the public inquiry in each case could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has of(a) the number and (b) percentage of people in cars not using seat belts in (a) front seats and (b) rear seats; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Transport Research Laboratory carries out six-monthly surveys of seat belt wearing rates. The most recent survey in October 1994 indicated that nationally 92 per cent. of drivers, 93 per cent. of front seat passengers and 67 per cent. of rear seat passengers were wearing seat belts in cars.

  Cycling
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has drawn about planning for cyclists following his recent trip to Holland; and what plans he has to meet representatives of cycling organisations to discuss his Department's future policies for cycling.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My recent visit to the Netherlands will be useful in developing ideas based on last year's Government statement on cycling policy. I shall be meeting representatives of the cyclists public affairs group to continue discussions on a number of issues.

  Traffic Commissioners (Public Inquiries)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce guidelines to ensure consistency in the
  56
  judgments reached by traffic commissioners in respect of public inquiries held by traffic commissioners; and if he will make a statement as to the merits of education or revocation where previous offences have been proven.

  Mr. Norris
  Traffic commissioners must judge each individual case on its merits, and it is up to the traffic commissioner concerned, having full regards to all the circumstances, to decide whether revocation or another course is preferable in a particular case. The traffic commissioners and their deputies have regular meetings, however, to discuss the general handling of cases, and the senior traffic commissioner issues guidelines on specific aspects of the legislation, in order to promote consistency.

  Hedge Planting
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure the maximum provision of hedge planting on the boundaries of new and widened roads for which his Department has a responsibility.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Fraser, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the provision of hedges along trunk roads and motorways.
  The Highways Agency fully recognises the importance that hedgerows can have in integrating roads into the adjoining landscape, and the benefits they can bring to nature conservation. For this reason we are keen to see hedgerows retained, and in some cases restored, along boundaries wherever possible.
  However, due to the difficulties associated with gaining access to maintain properly boundary hedgerows and fencing, it is our usual practice to provide hedgerows as accommodation works through negotiation with adjacent landowners. We estimate that, on average, around 100km of hedgerow are put back into the landscape in this way each year.
  Any feature provided as an accommodation work becomes the property of the landowner once the establishment maintenance is complete, usually after three years. Because of this, some landowners are unwilling to accept hedge planting and we are not empowered to offer any inducements to persuade them to do so. In exceptional circumstances, where hedgerows are deemed essential to the integration of the road, and landowners are unwilling to accept hedge planting as an accommodation work, we may therefore undertake to plant hedges and maintain them throughout the life of a road scheme.
  Advice on the use of the hedgerows in landscape design is included in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 10 (the Good Roads Guide), a copy of which is in the House of Commons library.

  Driving Skills Training
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to encourage the use of
  57
  driving skills training as a response to driving without due care and attention offences.

  Mr. Norris
  We have no training plans related specifically to drivers who have committed offences, but my right hon. Friend will shortly be launching a voluntary training scheme for drivers who have recently passed the driving test. I welcome the fact that certain police forces are providing driver rectification schemes.

  London Transport (Funding)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what sum is available to London Transport in its current financial year for the support of services considered desirable for social reasons; what criteria are applied by him or adopted by London Regional Transport; and what is the appropriate level of support in pence per passenger mile on those services.

  Mr. Norris
  The total Government grant available to London Transport in the current financial year is £373 million, excluding the ring-fenced provision for new lines. London Transport is responsible for decisions on the allocation of Government grant and its other resources, and on the general level and structure of services. Social benefits are among the factors taken into account by London Transport in so doing. There is no presumption in favour of any particular level of support per passenger mile.

  Accident Prevention
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to the research findings of Douglas Stewart of the department of engineering at the university of Aberdeen in relation to accident prevention for child pedestrians and the use of pedestrian guard rails.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is aware of Dr. Stewart's research on these subjects. Our research programme into accident causation will continue to look at ways of effectively evaluating these and other initiatives.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport from which individuals and organisations he seeks advice on the design of road curves.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Minister for Local Transport and Road Safety, Mr. Stephen Norris, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about advice on the design of road curves.
  The Agency and previously the Department of Transport have provided advice on the design of road curves for many years. This advice reflects the results of monitoring the performance of the network and special studies which have been carried out, in the main, by the Transport Research Laboratory.
  Additionally, experience abroad is monitored through our various contacts, e.g., Members of the Permanent International Association of Road Congresses, and relevant technical papers are examined to see if any points emerge which require follow up.
  Finally the requirements are exposed to peer group review from time to time through professional meetings etc. Where the Highway Agency's engineers find fully substantial evidence that the advice is in need of amendment then revised guidance is issued. There is full liaison with the Scottish Office, Welsh Office and DOENI over their requirements.

  Unmanned Crossings
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the accident between a minibus and a train on the East Suffolk line at the Brampton level crossing on 21 December 1994; and what changes he is proposing to order for unmanned crossings as a consequence.

  Mr. Watts
  The collision between the 09.05 Ipswich to Lowestoft Sprinter train and a camper van occurred at about 10.15 am on 21 December on the automatic, open-level crossing at Brampton station, Suffolk. There was no derailment nor any injury to those on board the train. The driver of the van was seriously injured and was taken to hospital; the passengers, six children, were shaken but uninjured.

  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate and Railtrack are investigating the circumstances of this collision. There are no plans to alter the protection at this crossing at present. Railtrack and the Health and Safety Executive will continue to conduct publicity campaigns and research on level crossing safety.

  Opencast Coal (Transport)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure the transport of opencast coal by rail rather than road.

  Mr. Watts
  It is for local authorities to consider the use of rail and other alternatives to road when appraising planning applications for opencast coal extraction. The Government provide grants for the use of rail for freight where justified by environmental and other benefits.

  Rail Freight
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what volume and value of freight was carried by British railways for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Watts
  This information is contained in tables 1.12 and 5.11 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain 1994", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Questions
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the reason for the delay in replying in full to the hon. Member for Pembroke's question, tabled on 17 November 1994, for which the hon. Member received a holding answer on 23 November 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  A number of errors occurred in the processing of this question. I am writing to the hon. Member with full details and an apology.

  Railway Station, Stratford
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions and on what dates he, Ministers or former Ministers in his Department met persons in Stratford, London, to discuss matters relating to the implications of building a new railway station at Stratford.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There have been numerous meetings between present and former Ministers in my Department and persons interested in the implications of providing a station on the channel tunnel rail link at Stratford. I will be
  59
  meeting representatives of the Stratford Promoter Group shortly about their proposals for a station.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions and on what dates he or Ministers or former Ministers in his Department informally met representatives of Decision Makers Ltd. to discuss matters relating to the development of a station at Stratford.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Neither I nor my ministerial colleagues have held any such meetings to discuss matters relating to the development of a station at Stratford; records of the informal meetings of former Ministers are not kept by my Department.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last six months civil servants in his Department met persons representative of interests in Stratford to discuss matters relating to proposals for a new Stratford station.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There have been many meetings between officials in my Department and persons whose interests include a station on the channel tunnel rail link at Stratford.

  Railway Station, Ebbsfleet
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he was personally briefed on Ebbsfleet by representatives of Decision Makers Ltd. either formally or informally.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I have received no such briefing.

  Through Ticketing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stations in(a) Grampian region, (b) Tayside region, (c) Highland region, (d) Scotland and (e) England will be capable of selling tickets to all destinations in the United Kingdom under the proposals published by the Rail Regulator, what is the ratio of stations to head of population for each of these areas, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts.
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The number of stations capable of selling tickets to all destinations will be unchanged.

  The Rail Regulator is currently consulting on a range of options for ticket retailing obligations at stations. No decisions on the number of stations required to sell through tickets will be made until the consultations exercise is completed.

WALES

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office has not granted preferred carrier status to any airline. The preferred carrier for any particular civil servant's travel depends on the circumstances of the journey concerned and the value for money.

  Farm Hygiene Inspections
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms were visited by Agricultural Development Advisory Service officers for the purposes of carrying out hygiene inspections in Wales in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of dairy farm hygiene inspection visits undertaken by ADAS in Wales is as follows—in financial years:

  Year

  Number

  1990–91

  2,721

  1991–92

  2,888

  1992–93

  2,557

  1993–94

  2,790

  1994–95—to 31 December 1994

  1,939

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of all sites for which approval has been sought for opencast mining operations, or on which opencast mining is currently taking place, indicating the latest estimate of annual tonnage extracted.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the total volume of opencast coal mined in Wales for each year since 1975 together with its percentage share of the total volume of coal mined and his comparable estimates for the next five years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Figures for the production of opencast coal are not held centrally. However, the County Planning Officers Society has published figures from 1983–84. The figures relating to Wales are as follows:

  Year

  Thousand tonnes

  Percentage of UK total

  1983–84

  1,547

  10.5

  1984–85

  1,738

  11.7

  1985–86

  2,174

  14.2

  1986–87

  1,522

  10.4

  1987–88

  1,677

  10.3

  1988–89

  1,748

  9.7

  1989–90

  2,088

  11.2

  1990–91

  1,865

  10.2

  1991–92

  2,402

  12.6

  1992–93

  2,423

  13.6

  1993–94

  2,504

  15.4

  The future production of opencast coal in Wales will depend on the commercial plans of the coal operators and planning decisions.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many salaried dentists were employed by each family health service authority in Wales in December 1994; and how many unfilled vacancies there were.

  Mr. Richards
  On 1 December 1994 there were three salaried dentists in post in Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys. There were three unfilled vacancies in Gwynedd.
  61
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists in Wales were providing NHS treatment in each of the family health services authority areas in each year since December 1990.

  Mr. Richards
  Information, relating to the number of dentists at 30 September, is given in the table:

  Number of dentists providing NHS treatment1

  FHSA

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Clwyd

  111

  105

  102

  114

  117

  Dyfed

  98

  101

  105

  104

  105

  Gwent

  125

  139

  135

  135

  138

  Gwynedd

  69

  65

  66

  67

  66

  Mid Glamorgan

  134

  123

  133

  126

  125

  Powys

  34

  36

  35

  34

  33

  South Glamorgan

  131

  129

  127

  133

  133

  West Glamorgan

  135

  134

  128

  130

  132

  Wales

  837

  832

  831

  843

  849

  1 Principals, assistants and vocational trainees. Each dentist is included in the FHSA in which the majority of time is spent.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent on providing the services of salaried dentists, including all establishment costs, employed by each Welsh family health services authority in 1992–93, 1993–94 and to date in 1994–95.

  Mr. Richards
  Expenditure on salaried dentists has been incurred by three FHSAs in Wales. Details of these are as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 (to 31.12.94) £

  Dyfed FHSA:

  16,553

  17,271

  Remuneration

  66,789

  28,206

  Expenses

  83,342

  45,477

  Gwynedd FHSA:

  18,228

  18,702

  Remuneration

  83,103

  20,231

  Expenses

  101,331

  38,933

  Powys FHSA:

  Remuneration

  nil

  18,920

  Expenses

  nil

  14,620

  Wales

  184,673

  117,950

  Sources: FHSA annual accounts for 1992–93, 1993–94, FHSA FIS returns for December 1994 and FHSA capital budgets for salaried dentists for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Cormorants and Goosanders
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requests he has from individuals and organisations to issue licences to shoot cormorants and goosanders on any Welsh river other than the River Wye; and what has been his decision in response to those requests.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Very few applications have been received to kill birds on other rivers in Wales in recent years and no licences have been issued.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the first licences were issued for the shooting of cormorants and goosanders on the River Wye.
  62
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  On 14 December 1994.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cormorants and goosanders have been shot on the River Wye following the issuing of licences by his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Up until 18 January 1995, three goosanders and no cormorants had been shot under current licences.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which organisations requested that licences be issued for the shooting of cormorants and goosanders on the River Wye.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. The applications were from individual fishery owners.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he requested advice from the Countryside Council for Wales on the issuing of licences for the shooting of cormorants and goosanders on the River Wye.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In November 1994 as far as the current licences are concerned.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice was sought by his Department before issuing licences for the shooting of cormorants and goosanders on the River Wye.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Advice and recommendations were provided by Agricultural Development Advisory Service wildlife consultants. These took account of comments by the Countryside Council for Wales and information provided by the National Rivers Authority.

  A-level Students
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with representatives of Welsh local education authorities and further education colleges concerning competition for students wishing to follow A-level courses.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with Welsh LEAs or FE colleges regarding this matter.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration has been given to the Calonste Gulbenkian Foundation report into discretionary awards; and what action he proposes in the light of its findings.

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply, given to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Boswell) on 23 November Official Report, columns 177–98, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the maximum annual discretionary award available to(a) further education students and (b) higher education students in each of the county councils in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  The amount and conditions of a discretionary awards for students on courses of further education or courses of higher education which are not designated for mandatory awards purposes are entirely a matter for local education authorities. LEAs may also make discretionary awards to students on designated courses of higher education who are personally ineligible
  63
  to receive mandatory awards. The amount and conditions of such an award must be the same as for a mandatory award for that course.

  Further Education Access Fund
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the total Welsh further education access fund each further education college received on behalf of its students in 1992–93, 1993–94 and to date in 1994–95.

  Mr. Richards
  Details of allocations of access funds to further education institutions in Wales in the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 are given in the following table.

  Allocation of access funds

  Institution

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  North East Wales Institute1

  68,218

  —

  —

  Llandrillo Technical College

  17,045

  24,302

  32,304

  Welsh College of Horticulture

  3,754

  3,961

  5,274

  Coleg Llysfasi College

  1,064

  1,280

  1,705

  Carmarthen College of Technology and Art

  19,155

  19,155

  24,955

  Pembrokeshire College

  9,955

  9,955

  13,047

  Coleg Ceredigion

  5,504

  6,015

  8,010

  Welsh Agricultural College1

  6,554

  —

  —

  Gwent Tertiary College

  38,325

  40,976

  54,566

  Gwynedd Technical College2

  5,349

  7,385

  9,835

  Coleg Pencraig2

  1,408

  2,263

  3,014

  Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor

  2,471

  3,425

  4,560

  Merthyr Tydfil College

  4,536

  7,385

  9,835

  Aberdare College

  5,881

  5,881

  7,217

  Bridgend College of Technology

  7,033

  7,266

  9,676

  Rhondda College

  1,001

  1,221

  1,626

  Ystrad Mynach College

  6,725

  8,427

  11,223

  Pontypridd Technical College

  7,570

  9,112

  12,135

  Pencoed College

  1,408

  2,144

  2,855

  Coleg Powys

  5,067

  5,067

  5,433

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  10,031

  10,031

  12,631

  Barry College

  9,978

  9,978

  12,571

  Swansea College

  7,914

  7,914

  9,636

  Gorseinon College

  1,720

  1,727

  2,300

  Neath College

  5,349

  5,349

  6,464

  Afan College

  1,720

  1,720

  2,221

  Coleg Harlech

  4,723

  4,723

  5,512

  Deeside College3

  —

  11,405

  15,188

  St. David's RC 6th Form College4

  —

  417

  555

  Yale College4

  —

  715

  18,916

  1 Since 1 April 1993 NEWI and WAC have been incorporated, higher education institutions

  2 Amalgamated as Coleg Menai on 1 August 1994

  3 Incorporated 1 April 1993 as a result of transfer of some FE provision from NEWI

  4 Joined FEFCW funded sector 1 April 1993

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individual applications were made to the further education access fund in 1992–93, 1993–94 and to date in 1994–95; and which further education colleges those students were attending.

  Mr. Richards
  Further education colleges in Wales received a total of 2,493 applications for assistance from the access funds in academic year 1992–93. Details of the applications received by each further education college are given in the following table. Similar information for academic years 1993–94 and 1994–95 is not yet available.
  64

  Institution

  Number of students applying for assistance from the access funds in the academic year 1992–93

  North East Wales Institute

  649

  Llandrillo Technical College

  184

  Welsh College of Horticulture

  28

  Coleg Llysfasi College

  10

  Carmarthen College of

  85

  Technology and Art

  Pembrokeshire College

  62

  Coleg Ceredigion

  41

  Welsh Agricultural College

  48

  Gwent Tertiary College

  353

  Gwynedd Technical College1

  88

  Coleg Pencraig1

  31

  Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor

  19

  Merthyr Tydfil College

  72

  Aberdare College

  63

  Bridgend College of Technology

  57

  Rhondda College

  14

  Ystrad Mynach College

  116

  Pontypridd Technical College

  143

  Pencoed College

  11

  Coleg Powys

  52

  Coleg Glan Hafren

  106

  Barry College

  72

  Swansea College

  15

  Gorseinon College

  18

  Neath College

  20

  Afan College

  15

  Coleg Harlech

  121

  Total

  2,493

  1 Amalgamated as Coleg Menai on 1 August 1994.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria are used to decide if a student is eligible for assistance from the further education access fund.

  Mr. Richards
  The Further Education Funding Council pays grants to institutions within the further education sector in Wales so that they may provide financial help to students whose access to further education might be inhibited by financial considerations or who, for whatever reason including physical or other disabilities, face financial difficulties.

  In order to be eligible for assistance from the access funds, further education students must satisfy the residence requirement, be following full-time—including sandwich—courses of further or adult education and be aged 19 or over. It is for each institution to decide its own criteria and procedures for considering applications and making payments of access funds to eligible students, subject to the terms and conditions specified by the council and any other guidance from the council.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has in mind for the review of the role and function of the fundholding project management group at the end of the first year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The group will conduct its own review after the end of its first year of operation. I will then consider its future in the light of that review and circumstances obtaining at the time.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the number, date and place of the meetings of the general practitioner fundholder steering group since 23 March 1994; what sub-committees have
  65
  been set up and to cover which topics; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the papers and studies commissioned and actions taken to implement the recommendations of the general practitioner fundholding project management group.

  Mr. Redwood
  The GPFH steering group has met on three occasions at the Hensol conference centre on 10 May, 13 September and 15 November 1994. No sub-committees have been set up.

  The following topics have been considered:

  Steering Group Terms of Reference

  Weighted Capitation

  Financial Management

  Survey of GP practices

  Fair Purchasing

  Most of this work is continuing.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the initiatives by the general practitioner fundholding project management group, taken in(a) promotion of general practitioner fundholding to non-fundholders, (b) setting up a strategic planning process, (c) meeting the need for financial control and an acceptable method of determining allocations, (d) evaluating the scheme and (e) evaluating the implications of the onset of unitary authorities on the relationship with fundholders.

  Mr. Redwood
  The GP fundholding project management group has no executive function. Any action required in respect of views or recommendations arising from its work will be a matter for my Department.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the executive committee of the general practitioner fundholding project management group and its membership and functions.

  Mr. Redwood
  The GPFH steering group does not have an executive committee.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the Welsh conference on general practitioner fundholding mentioned in his letter of 23 March 1994 to all general practitioner fundholders.

  Mr. Redwood
  The conference was held on 14 June 1994. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), gave the keynote address and other speeches dealt with matters relating to the scheme. GP Fundholders and representatives from DHAs, FHSAs, and hospitals responded to an invitation widely distributed in the service.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the percentage figures for(a) brand name and (b) generic prescribing for the average of all general practitioner fundholders in Wales in (i) the second year before they became fundholders, (ii) the year before they became fundholders, (iii) the first year after they became fundholders and (iv) the average of each subsequent year;

  (2) if he will list the percentage brand name and generic prescribing ratio for the average of all general practitioner fundholders in (a) the second year before they became fundholders, (b) the year before they became fundholders, (c) the first year of fundholding and (d) the average for all subsequent years;
  66
  (3) if he will list the average value of capital projects at the surgery premises of (a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners, in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage figures for(a) brand name and (b) generic prescribing for (i) general practitioner fundholders and (ii) non-general practitioner fundholders in each family health service authority in Wales for each of the past three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information is not available in the form requested. The percentages of generic prescribing in each family health services authority in Wales is as follows:

  October 1992

  October 1993

  October 1994

  Clwyd Fundholders

  40.89

  50.00

  53.66

  FHSA

  40.23

  44.28

  47.23

  Dyfed Fundholders

  50.87

  52.87

  51.62

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will specify the policy objectives of the general practitioner fundholding project management group, relating to the NHS in Wales and the other developments relevant to the development of the general practitioner fundholding scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 17 January about the GP fundholding project management group's terms of reference and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to institute a full valuation of the surgery premises at(a) general practitioner fundholders and (b) non-fundholders; what estimate his Department has made of the average value of surgery premises of (i) general practitioner fundholders and (ii) non-fundholders; what estimate his Department has made of the rate of change of that average capital value of (1) general practitioner fundholders and (2) non-fundholders' surgery premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  General practitioners are independent self employed contractors in the NHS. Under their terms of service, they themselves are required to provide adequate practice premises from which to see their patients. The capital value of, and investment in, the premises they own is a matter for them, and their interest in any premises they may rent is between them and their landlord. It would not be appropriate therefore for me to institute a full valuation of their practice premises.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list short-term loans given to each NHS trust in Wales, since its inception, stating what the interest rate was, what the term was, if security was requested and provided and for what purpose the loan was requested; and if he will detail any requests that were refused and the purpose for which they were sought.
  67
  Mr. Redwood
  Information on short term loans to NHS trusts in Wales is as follows:

  Trust

  Loan (£000)

  Interest rate per cent.

  Term (days)

  Nevill Hall and District

  220

  5.2

  10

  230

  5.3

  7

  175

  5.2

  10

  175

  5.3

  7

  175

  5.2

  12

  175

  5.3

  7

  Pembrokeshire

  150

  5.2

  14

  100

  5.3

  7

  300

  5.7

  10

  200

  5.8

  11

  Morriston

  1,029

  5.1

  92

  1,162

  5.2

  124

  800

  5.3

  31

  850

  5.4

  41

  Gwynedd Community Health

  580

  5.0

  29

  150

  6.2

  111

  200

  6.4

  99

  Bridgend and District

  1,000

  6.2

  121

  1,000

  6.3

  91

  South East Wales Ambulance

  500

  5.3

  183

  500

  6.2

  155

  North Wales Ambulance

  130

  5.1

  60

  Derwen

  105

  5.2

  13

  Rhondda Healthcare

  300

  5.2

  14

  Clwydian Community Care

  900

  5.3

  178

  500

  6.0

  182

  Velindre

  15

  5.2

  14

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  500

  5.3

  10

  Security is required only in the case of commercial loans. All short-term loans to NHS trusts in Wales have been provided by my Department for financial management purposes. No such applications have been refused.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the absenteeism rate for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in 1991, 1992 and 1993;

  (2) what was the absenteeism rate for the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in 1991, 1992 and 1993;

  (3) what was the absenteeism rate for the Intervention Board in 1991, 1992 and 1993;

  (4) what was the absenteeism rate for the Central Veterinary Laboratory in 1991, 1992 and 1993;

  (5) what was the absenteeism rate for the Central Science Laboratory in 1991, 1992 and 1993;
  68
  (6) what was the absenteeism rate for the Pesticides Safety Directorate in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  These matters are the responsibilities of the chief executives concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 20 December 1994:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about absenteeism rates in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD), as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible as Chief Executive.
  The VMD has a total staff of 102 as at 1 December 1994. In terms of absenteeism related to sickness, the information you requested for the Directorate is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1991

  3.4

  1992

  2.6

  1993

  3.0

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Walsh to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 January 1995:
  Recently, you tabled a Parliamentary Question (PQ 240) enquiring after the absenteeism rate for ADAS in 1991/1993. Subsequently, you requested additional data for 1994. The figures are as follows:

  Year

  Average days per person

  1991

  6.5

  1992

  6.7

  1993

  18.5

  1994

  7.8 (year to 14 December 1994)

  1 Introduction of new work recording system.

  Please note that these figures contain many reasons for absenteeism such as sick leave, maternity leave, special leave for other purposes.

  Letter from Guy Stapleton to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question about the absenteeism rate for the Intervention Board in 1991, 1992 and 1993, as the matter is one within my operational responsibility.
  Sick absence rates in the Intervention Board for the financial years 199–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, calculated as a percentage of total man years, were:

  Year

  Percentage

  1990–91

  44

  1991–92

  3.9

  1992–93

  6.7

  The increase in 1992–93 was mainly the result of a relatively small number of the Agency's staff who were then on long-term sick leave. Most of these officers have since retired on medical grounds.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 January 1995:
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what was the absenteeism rate for the Central Veterinary Laboratory in 1991, 1992 and 1993.
  As you know the Minister has asked that I write to you direct with the answer to your question.
  CVL was launched as an Executive Agency on 2 April 1990. Information on absences since that date is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  69
  Letter from Dr. P. I. Stanley to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 January 1995:
  Absenteeism Rate in the Central Science Laboratory 1991–93
  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 1 April 1992. Questions relating to staff when they formed part of the core Department before the Agency's launch are for the Minister to consider.
  Since becoming an Agency CSL has kept management information, including details of absenteeism (unauthorised absences), on a financial year basis. During the 1992–93 financial year there were no unauthorised absences and during 1993–94 there was a single incidence of eight days duration involving a junior member of the scientific staff. This was out of a total number of . staff in post of 488.
  On 1 April 1994 CSL was re-launched as an enlarged Agency following the merger with the Food Science Laboratories at Aberdeen and Norwich. To date in the current financial year there have been no instances of absenteeism in the enlarged Agency.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Question about absenteeism rates in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate.
  The Directorate was launched as an executive agency on 1 April 1993. Information on absences since that date is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Questions relating to staff when they formed part of the core Department before the agency's launch are for the Minister to consider.

  Flooding
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 614, what evidence he has that agricultural practices which leave land without grass or crop cover can lead to an increased rate of run-off.

  Mr. Jack
  Grass or, indeed, any kind of crop cover has the ability to retain water, thereby leading to a natural decrease in the rate of run-off. The precise effect of crop cover on rates of run-off will however vary according to a number of factors including slope of the land, type of soil, rate of rainfall and agricultural practices.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 November,Official Report, column 613, what assessment he has made of the need for extensive surveys and flood modelling to assess if more run-off from the land is occurring and flood damage is becoming more frequent and widespread.

  Mr. Jack
  Changes in flood response in any particular catchment depend on a combination of factors notably land use, topography and climate. Ministry research carried out by the Institute of Hydrology suggests little evidence of any significant overall trend in the rate of runoff from land over time. In the light of this, the Ministry has no plans for more extensive surveys over and above those being undertaken by the National Rivers Authority to inform local planning authorities of flood risk areas.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that other member states comply with the rules in the common agricultural policy.
  70
  Mr. Jack
  Ensuring member state compliance with Community rules, including those concerning the CAP, is the responsibility of the European Commission.

  The most effective sanction against non-compliance with CAP regulations is the Commission's powers to "disallow"—not reimburse—member states' expenditure which it believes was not in accordance with the rules. In December 1994, in its decision on the clearance of the 1991 CAP accounts, the Commission disallowed £1.2 billion of member states' 1991 CAP expenditure—almost 5 per cent. of the total. The Government will continue to do everything possible to ensure that the Commission makes full and proper use of these powers. For example, as a result of the United Kingdom's legal challenge to Commission disallowance decisions relating to breaches of the EC milk quota legislation by Italy, Spain and Greece, the disallowance due is increased by over 50 per cent.

  We also fully support a measure soon to be implemented which, among other things, seeks to speed up the clearance of accounts process and improve the financial management of the CAP in all member states.

  In addition, we are always ready to press the Commission to take action against another member state whenever evidence of breaches of the rules comes to light. Our agricultural attachès in other member states have specific instructions to be alert to such breaches. As a result of our initiatives, the Commission has recently ruled illegal state aids to French pig producers and Irish mushroom growers, requiring the aids to be repaid with interest.

  Farm Hygiene Inspections
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms were visited by Agricultural Development and Advisory Service officers for the purposes of carrying out hygiene inspections in England in each year since 1990.

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of farm hygiene inspections carried out by ADAS officers in England in each financial year since 1990 is as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  14,457

  1991–92

  12,112

  1992–93

  12,896

  1993–94

  12,602

  19941

  9,203

  1 April-December

  Fishing (Spanish Vessels)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what scientific advice he has received on the impact on fish stocks of 40 Spanish vessels fishing in the Irish box.

  Mr. Jack
  Throughout the negotiations on the integration of Spain and Portugal into the common fisheries policy I have been advised by the fisheries scientists at the Ministry's directorate of fisheries research at Lowestoft.

  Spanish fishing in the Irish box from 1 January 1996 will be constrained not only by the number of vessels they are permitted there but by their quotas for the relevant International Council for the Exploration of the Seas

  71
  zones, and by any effort control measures which may be adopted in relation to their fleet during 1995.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 210, what was the destination of the 6,662 cattle exported for immediate slaughter; and if all the animals were over six months of age.

  Mrs. Browning
  The destinations—and number of animals—are: France, 83; the Netherlands, 233; Republic of Ireland, 32; and Northern Ireland, 6,314.

  European Community rules prohibit the export from the United Kingdom to other member states of cattle which are over six months of age—unless they were born outside the UK. Animals consigned from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are included in the ANIMO figures because health certification is required for such movements, and are not subject to an upper age limit.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of(a) lorries carrying live animals and (b) animals, by species, exported live through Dover to Zeebrugge on the weekend of 13 to 15 January, stating whether these animals were being exported for (i) immediate slaughter, (ii) further fattening or (iii) breeding only.

  Mrs. Browning
  Such information could be provided only by the ferry companies concerned.

ENVIRONMENT

  Area Cost Adjustments
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much more would be distributed to(a) Humberside and (b) east midlands counties if the area cost adjustment was adjusted as proposed by the Association of County. Councils; and if he will make a statement on his reasons for rejecting such an adjustment;

  (2) what were his reasons for rejecting the Association of County Councils' proposals in July 1994 for reassessing the area cost adjustment on the basis of actual spending; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his estimate of the change in the area cost adjustment if it was based on actual rather than theoretical labour cost differentials as indicated by local authority pay scales and employee budgets; what are his reasons for using theoretical costs; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what is his estimate of the reduction in the gain to the south-east in the current year through the area cost adjustment of basing it only on London weighting;

  (5) what are his reasons for rejecting the proposals made by the Association of County Councils in 1993 for adjusting the area cost adjustment on the basis of the actual payments to teachers, firemen and police; how much would have been deducted from the adjustment to the south-east if he had done; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) when he expects his new review of costs as a new base for the area cost adjustment to be (a) completed and (b) considered; on what grounds it is being carried out on the basis of travel-to-work areas rather than local
  72
  authority areas; and what are the actual costs and wages for local authority employees or average costs;

  (7) what evidence and research he relied on to demonstrate the existence of a general labour market requiring higher wages to attract good-quality staff in the south-east; and what assessment he makes of the margin of difference this makes in actual average wages of (a) teachers, (b) firemen and (c) local authority manuals between London and the south-east and the east midlands.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The area cost adjustment is based mainly on evidence of differences between areas in rates of pay in occupations within which local authorities are likely to have to compete for employees. The evidence of rates of pay is taken from the new earnings survey, and is updated each year.

  The Association of County Councils has criticised the scale of the area cost adjustment. In 1993, it suggested that the adjustment should, in the case of teachers, police, and firefighters, take account only of London weighting payments. In 1994, the association suggested that other specific employment-related costs might also be included, although it believed that, even if this were done, the total of the area cost adjustment would be less than it is.

  We have misgivings, however, about the association's proposals in 1993 to base the area cost adjustment on London weighting payments alone because this would not reflect all the variations in employment costs faced by local authorities. We also Lave misgivings about the association's proposals in 1994 to identify and cost all the extra expenses related to operating in London and the south-east. This is partly because we seek to avoid reflecting in standard spending assessments the actual expenditures of authorities; and partly because we would be reluctant to introduce additional judgments into the determination of the SSA formula. We remain to be persuaded that a generally agreed list of extra costs could be identified and costed objectively, without reference to evidence of prevailing rates of pay in the local employment market of the kind which already forms the basis of the area cost adjustment.

  The association's observations in 1994 were not developed into a methodology which could be applied in the calculation of the area cost adjustment. It is therefore not possible to say what the area cost adjustment would have been if the association's views had formed the basis of the calculation. Nor does the Department currently have sufficient information to calculate the level of the area cost adjustment if it were based solely on actual wage payments, local authority pay scales or London weighting. Any change in the basis of the area cost adjustment would also affect other aspects of the formula for calculating SSAs. For example, there would need to be a reappraisal of the weighting given to additional education needs.

  Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has discussed with the Association of County Councils its views on the area cost adjustment. We are prepared to consider further any proposals they may make for an alternative methodology for calculating the adjustment.

  We also propose to commission research this year which may enable the area cost adjustment to take account of variations in rates of pay between travel-to-work areas in all parts of England. Travel-to-work areas are being considered because they may be a better reflection of the pattern of local labour markets than are the administrative areas of local authorities. The progress of the research will

  73
  depend both on the availability of the necessary data and the success of the researchers in developing a method by which it could be used in the area cost adjustment. We will consider the findings of the research, once they are available.

  Departmental Administration
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he made of the advantages and disadvantages of moving Cumbria from the northern standard region into the integrated north-west region;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of transferring Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey and West Sussex from the south-east standard region into the south-east integrated region;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of transferring Merseyside from the north-west standard region and creating a free standing integrated Merseyside region;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of transferring Greater London from the south-east standard region to the Greater London integrated region;

  (5) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of transferring Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk from the East Anglian standard region and Bedfordshire, Essex and Herfordshire from the south-east standard region into the new integrated eastern region.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The 10 Government offices for the regions brought together the existing regional offices of the Departments of Employment, Trade and Industry, Transport and the Environment. The proposed boundaries of the new offices harmonised the existing departmental regional boundaries and were adopted, after due consultation, when the new offices opened for business in April 1994. The boundaries are depicted in my Department's annual report, available from the House of Commons Library. There is no direct relationship between the boundaries of the Government offices for the regions and the standard regions, which are used primarily for statistical purposes.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax bandings are currently outstanding(a) nationally and (b) by each valuation office.

  Mr. Curry
  Some 959,101 proposals to alter the valuation list had been received in England by the end of December 1994, of which 229, 084 were outstanding. I am placing in the Library a table which breaks these totals down by valuation office region and office.

  Railway Station, Stratford
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions and on what dates he or Ministers or former Ministers in his Department met persons representative of interests in Stratford, east London, to discuss matters relating to proposals for a new Stratford station.
  74
  Sir Paul Beresford
  Matters relating to the proposal for an intermediate station on the new channel tunnel rail link at Stratford in east London have been raised with various Ministers in this Department in a variety of meetings over the last two years. For example, in that period, there have been four meetings of the East Thames Forum, in which Ministers responsible for urban regeneration have met the leaders of east London local authorities. The then Minister with responsibility for urban regeneration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, (Sir G. Young), visited the Stratford site in August 1993 and he and the Minister of State with special responsibility for the east Thames corridor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, (Mr. Curry), received a presentation from the Stratford promoters in November 1993.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions and on what dates he or Ministers or former Ministers in his Department have met persons in Stratford, London to discuss matters relating to the regeneration of east London.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Stratford is the focal point of a number of major regeneration initiatives in east London. These includes Stratford city challenge, a successful single regeneration budget bid and the European regional development fund funded "East London and the Lea Valley Corridor" programme. Stratford is also an important part of the Government's Thames gateway initiative. Since May 1992, the earliest date for which information is readily available, the Secretary of State and departmental Ministers have visited Stratford in connection with these regeneration initiatives as follows:

  Secretary of State

  Regeneration of east London conference, Old Town hall, Stratford, 19 October 1993.

  Opening of new Stratford bus station, 16 November 1994.

  Sir George Young

  East London housing association, Victoria street, Stratford, 9 March 1993.

  Marking the city challenge boundary, 2 August 1993.

  Annual review, Stratford city challenge, 1 February 1994.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones

  Tour of Stratford city challenge, 25 November 1994.

  Announcement of successful SRB bids, Old Town hall, Stratford, 6 December 1994.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions in the last six months civil servants in his Department met persons representative of interests in Stratford to discuss matters relating to proposals for a new Stratford station.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In the last six months, officials from my Department have met officers from the London borough of Newham and others with an interest in the proposed intermediate station on the new channel tunnel rail link at Stratford on a number of occasions. Similar meetings have been held with those with an interest in other intermediate stations. For example, as part of the public consultation exercise on the Thames gateway planning framework, published on 7 September 1994 and more generally. Officials from the Department's Thames gateway task force have regularly attended, as observers, meetings of the Stratford Station Promoters Group.

  Railway Station, Ebbsfleet
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date Ministers in his Department were briefed by Decision Makers Ltd. either formally or informally on the international station at Ebbsfleet.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Ministers naturally meet a wide range of people at social occasions to which they are invited, and it is inevitable that issues of current concern are raised during conversations at such occasions. However, the Secretary of State and Ministers in this Department have had no briefing meetings with Decision Makers Ltd. on the proposed intermediate station on the channel tunnel rail link at Ebbsfleet. They were fully briefed on the station proposals during visits to the local authority areas concerned, when they met councillors, officers and representatives of the landowners, Blue Circle Properties. The Minister of State with special responsibility for Thames gateway met representatives of Dartford borough council in June 1994, to discuss the regeneration of Kent Thamesside. Representatives of Decision Makers Ltd. were present at that meeting as advisers to Dartford council.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Open Government
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will establish an investigation into the differential charges made to applicants under the code of practice on official information by non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  No.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action is being taken to give the public more access to Government information.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  We are continuing to implement the policy set down in the White Paper on open government.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will indicate the percentage of the total number of appointments to public bodies who are (i) women, (ii) of Asian origin, (iii) of Afro-Caribbean origin and (iv) of other ethnic minority origin.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  As I announced to the House on Friday, the proportion of public appointments held by women is 30 per cent.; and 2.6 per cent. of appointments are held by black and Asian people.

  County Palatinate
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will next visit the County Palatinate to discuss science.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Shortly.

  Civil Service Morale
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what new proposals he has to improve morale in the civil service.
  76
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The best way to improve morale is to allow staff to perform to the best of their abilities in their chosen career. The Government's civil service reforms enable staff to focus their attention on delivering high quality public services efficiently and effectively, with a minimum of central oversight.

  Research Council Staffing
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of Sir John Cadogan's review of the staffing of the research councils.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Sir John Cadogan is concluding his discussions with the research councils regarding their plans for 1995. Thereafter, the continuing search for improvements in efficiency and effectiveness is an essential part of the Government's commitment to ensure that the costs and complexities of administering the research councils' systems are minimised.

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further citizens charters he is proposing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Northern Ireland further and higher education charters will be published later this year. This will bring the total number of charters to 42.

  In addition, public service organisations continue to develop their existing service standards and a number of revised charters will be published later in the year. These include the contributors charter for national insurance payers, the council tenants charter and the court service charter, which will replace the existing courts charter.

SCOTLAND

  M77
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expressions of concern he has received regarding proposed funding for the Ayr road route, M77, from the European Commission.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been no formal exchanges with the European Commission regarding funding for the M77 Ayr road route. However, the issue of funding of roads was discussed in the context of negotiations about the western Scotland single programming document, which was approved by the Commission on 16 December 1994. The SPD provides that support from the European regional development fund will be available for projects which construct or improve access roads to new or existing sites for industrial, business or tourism development where there is demonstrable potential for significant job-creating investments.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the European Commission about the environmental impact assessment for the Ayr road route, M77.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The United Kingdom authorities have received an informal letter of inquiry
  77
  from the Commission on that subject and we propose to respond by the end of this month.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he took to ensure that a proper environmental impact assessment was carried out before he gave consent for the Ayr road route, M77.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A full and wide-ranging public local inquiry was undertaken into the proposed road scheme in 1988. The environmental assessment of the scheme was presented by the joint promoters at the inquiry. The report of the inquiry, including a summary of the evidence and arguments, was submitted to my right hon. Friend before his decision on whether to proceed with the road proposals.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken to secure European Commission funding for the Ayr road route, M77.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend does not intend to seek European Community funding for the trunk road sections of the proposed M77 Ayr road route for which he is responsible. It would be for Strathclyde regional council to decide whether to apply for funding for all or any part of the route for which it is responsible.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list which interested groups he consulted during the planning stage of the Ayr road route, M77; and what were the results of this consultation period.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  More than 50 organisations were consulted, including the National Trust for Scotland, the Countryside Commission for Scotland, regional, district and community councils, ScotRail and the National Farmers Union. The consultations showed general support for the proposals, but also identified some specific concerns. In those cases where the concerns could not be resolved by discussion, they were considered at the subsequent local public inquiry.

  Scottish Renewables Obligation
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to ensure that genuine competition exists between potential contractors for the Scottish renewables obligation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  There was considerable interest in the first order under the scottish renewables obligation. A bulletin describing the arrangements for the SRO was issued by my officials in October 1993 to about 300 interested organisations and individuals. As a result, some 190 projects were submitted for consideration. Following a technical and economic scrutiny of these projects, about 140 were judged to be acceptable by the Office of Electricity Regulation. These formed the subject of the advice given to my right hon. Friend by the Director General of Electricity Supply. I understand that 30 of these 140 projects have now been offered contracts by the 78
  public electricity supply companies under the terms of the first order. There was therefore very keen competition for contracts across the whole range of technologies included.

  Bridges
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he has taken as a result of the BD21 directive of 1985.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The bridge assessment and strengthening programme to upgrade all sub-standard bridges on the trunk road network started in 1988 and is expected to be completed by 1998. This is in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The regional councils were advised to implement a similar programme for regional roads in December 1988 and the Scottish Office Industry Department has taken this into account in the capital allocations to individual regions.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the Scottish Road Haulage Association in relation to the strengthening of bridges.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Industry Department has had no representations from the Road Haulage Association Scottish division in relation to the strengthening of bridges.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the attendance figures for 1994 reported by the national museum and galleries in Scotland, broken down to the individual institutions but including their substations, with the percentage change from 1993.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 19 January 1995]: The information is as follows:

  1994

  Percentage change since 1993

  National museums of Scotland

  1,120,240

  +4

  National galleries of Scotland

  883,928

  + 18

  Figures for the national museums of Scotland relate to the Royal museum of Scotland, the museum of antiquities, the Scottish agricultural museum, the Scottish united services museum, the museum of flight, the museum of costume and the gasworks museum. The national galleries of Scotland figures relate to the national gallery of Scotland, the Scottish national portrait gallery and the Scottish national gallery of modern art.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what calculations he has made of the changes in levels of funding for the youth service in Scotland since 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: In Scotland, the youth service is part of local authority provision for community education. It is not possible to identify separately expenditure on the

  79
  youth service. Total expenditure by local authorities on community education in 1989–90 was £62 million rising to £79.2 million in 1992–93.

  In addition, the Scottish Office Education Department administers a scheme of grants to voluntary organisations in the community education field. Grants paid to organisations engaged in the provision of youth services totalled £0.57 million in 1989–90 rising to £0.69 million in 1993–94.

  Goats
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) goat producers and (b) goats there are in Scotland; and what financial assistance is available to goat producers in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The number of goats recorded in the census at June 1994 was 11,123 kept on 1,047 agricultural units.

  There are some grant assistance schemes which may be of interest to those who keep goats. Goat producers, provided that they meet the eligibility criteria, would qualify for grant under the farm and conservation grant scheme. There are also the marketing and development scheme and, in relation to goat milk and meat products, the EC processing and marketing grant scheme. Some financial assistance in objective 1 and 5b areas may also be available.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all sites in Scotland where low-level radioactive waste is dumped or stored; what steps are taken to ensure that no higher level waste is also included; and what measures are taken to protect the public from any potential dangers.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 20 January 1995]: The following landfill sites in Scotland are approved by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate for the controlled burial of low level radioactive wastes from hospitals, universities and other small users and are still receiving these wastes:

  Site

  Site location

  Kilgarth

  Glasgow

  Summerston

  Glasgow

  Dalmacoulter

  Monklands

  Braehead

  Edinburgh

  Melville Wood

  North East Fife

  Riverside

  Dundee

  Ness

  Aberdeen

  Lower Polmaise

  Stirling

  East Saltoun

  East Lothian

  Longman

  Inverness

  At AEA Technology's premises at Dounreay, low-level radioactive waste produced by activities on the site is disposed of by burial on site. Before disposal, detailed monitoring of waste takes place to ensure that only low level waste is disposed of by this route.
  80
  All wastes disposed of by these users are classified as low-level waste and the disposals take place in accordance with authorisations issued by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of his Department's expenditure on benefit is means-tested; and what was the figure 15 years ago.

  Mr. Lilley
  The percentage of my Department's expenditure on income-related benefits was 15.7 per cent. in 1979–80 and 34 per cent. in 1993–94.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social fund grants, for each of the last three years for which figures are available, were awarded above the new maximum ceiling of £875.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In 1992–93, 27,800 social fund funeral payments were made for amounts more than £875. There were 41,300 such payments in 1993–94 and 31,500 have been made so far in the current financial year.

  Benefits (Post Office Payments)
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to enable pensioners to choose to have their benefits paid through the Post Office.

  Mr. Lilley
  We are committed to giving pensioners the choice of payment directly into their bank or building society by automated credit transfer or at the post office. For pensioners and others who do not want to be paid in this way, we are planning significant improvements in the delivery of benefits at post offices. The post office network will be automated, and order books and girocheques replaced with a benefit payment card.

  Automation will virtually eliminate instrument of payment fraud, produce administrative savings for the Department, and provide a more responsive service to our customers, as well as providing Post Office Counters Ltd. the opportunity to automate other counter business. We are looking to the private sector to suggest how the system might best achieve these objectives, and to design, build, finance and operate the system under a contract that would provide payment based on transaction volumes. I was able to announce on 9 December Official Report, column 385, the names of five companies, some of which lead consortia, which have been invited to further develop their solutions.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask' the Secretary of State for Social Security what forms of payment pensioners will be eligible to opt for when having their benefits paid through the Post Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Pensioners will continue to be able to choose to be paid through the post office by using either automated credit transfer into girobank or National Savings bank accounts, or order books.
  81
  In future, there will be major changes for those who do not choose ACT. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced plans to automate the payment of benefits at post offices. Order books will eventually be replaced by a benefit payment card which will allow access to information held electronically. People paid by ACT will not be affected.

  Child Support
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the scope of the child support appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform the operation of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend the scope of the child support appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Members to the statement made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the fifth report by the Social Security Select Committee of Session 199394 on the operation of the Child Support Act 1991, HC420; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government have considered carefully the recent report of the Social Security Select Committee and today made their response. A copy is in the Library.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reduced benefit directions have been issued by the Child Support Agency to date.

  Mr. Burt
  From 5 April 1993 to 31 October 1994, the Child Support Agency referred 13,830 cases to the Benefits Agency to consider the implementation of a reduced benefit direction.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish a compliance cost assessment for the Child Support Act 1991.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have published the compliance cost assessment for the Child Support Act 1991 today. The report highlights areas where the work of the agency affects employers and represents a cost to them. It has been produced in consultation with the DSS employers' panel and the DSS employers' sub-group for child support.

  Copies of the compliance cost assessment have been placed in the Library.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of people receiving income support assistance with their mortgage interest payments are people with disabilities.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Approximately 14 per cent. of claimants currently receiving income support mortgage interest payments are receiving the disability premium.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the work of his Department's Maxwell pensions unit.
  82
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Maxwell pensions unit continues to provide substantial administrative support to the Maxwell pensioners trust and to work with all concerned to encourage the resolution of Maxwell pensions disputes. The unit will stay in business while it has useful work to do, although it clearly does not represent an infinite resource.

  Occupational Pension Funds
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the accountability of occupational pension funds.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform the operation of occupational pension funds.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We published our proposals in the Pensions Bill which was introduced in the House of Lords on 15 December 1994.

  Maternity Grant (Blyth Valley)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women claimed maternity grant in Blyth Valley in the last year for which figures are available, and what is the estimated number of women who will receive social fund payments for maternity in the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Around 560,000 maternity grants were made in Great Britain in 1986–87, the last year in which the grants were awarded. The corresponding figures for Blyth Valley are not available.

  The available figures on social fund maternity claims and payments for the Benefits Agency district office of Northumberland are set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of maternity payments claimed in Northumberland district

  Number of maternity payments awarded in Northumberland district

  1991–92

  1,072

  907

  1992–93

  1,160

  988

  1993–94

  1,239

  1,058

  The total number of social fund maternity payments awarded in Great Britain in 1993–94 was 230,220; the number for 1994–95 is estimated at 312,900. Estimates cannot be made other than on a national basis.

  Income Support
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the total number of claimants receiving assistance, (b) the average cost per claimant and (c) the total cost of assistance to (i) home owners, (ii) local authority tenants and (iii) private and housing association tenants, in receipt of income support towards their housing costs in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.
  83

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  (i) Home owners

  Number of income support cases with mortgage interest included in the assessment

  281,000

  310,000

  411,000

  499,000

  555,000

  Average weekly cost

  £24.16

  £34.32

  £44.41

  £44.02

  £42.17

  Implied annual cost

  £353 million

  £553 million

  £949 million

  £1,143 million

  £1,217 million

  (ii) Local authority tenants

  Number of income support cases in local authority housing

  1,739,000

  1,678,000

  1,657,000

  1,754,000

  1,842,000

  Average weekly cost

  £19.93

  £22.74

  £26.08

  £29.88

  £32.23

  Implied annual cost

  £1,802 million

  £1,984 million

  £2,247 million

  £2,725 million

  £3,087 million

  (iii) Private and housing association tenants

  Number of income support cases in private housing and housing association

  552,000

  589,000

  673,000

  836,000

  1,004,000

  Average weekly cost

  £25.48

  £31.35

  £37.35

  £43.20

  £48.58

  Implied annual cost

  £731 million

  £960 million

  £1,307 million

  £1,878 million

  £2,536 million

  Sources: Income support statistics annual inquiries May 1989–93; housing benefit management information statistics, annual 1 per cent. sample with income support taken at the end of May in each year given.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of recipients of rent allowance housing benefits at 31 May 1994 in(a) housing association properties and (b) private rented properties;

  Recipients (thousands)

  Average weekly eligible rent

  Average Weekly rent allowance

  Housing Association Tenants

  Other Private Tenants

  All Private Tenants £

  Housing Association Tenants £

  Other Private Tenants £

  All Private Tenants £

  Housing Association Tenants £

  Other Private Tenants £

  May 1993

  412

  1,068

  46.98

  39.88

  49.86

  43.61

  35.75

  46.80

  May 1994

  508

  1,126

  50.78

  n/a

  n/a

  47.21

  n/a

  n/a

  Note:

  1 Information relates to eligible rent for housing benefit as actual rents paid are not available. Detailed average rent and benefit figures are for May 1993 as May 1994 figures are not yet available.

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of his estimated savings on invalidity benefit in 1995–96 and 1996–97 will be achieved by(a) an estimated reduction in the number of successful new claimants and (b) existing claimants losing benefit.

  Mr. Hague
  In 1995–96, 13 per cent. of the estimated savings are accounted for by the exclusion of new claimants as a result of the medical test of incapacity and 41 per cent. by the exclusion of existing claimants. In 1996–97, 17 per cent. of the estimated savings are accounted for by the exclusion of new claimants as a result of the medical test and 48 per cent. by the exclusion of existing claimants.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about measures being taken to review cases handled at the disability living allowance unit in Blackpool.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief
  84
  what was the average rent of each of these properties; and what was the average rent allowance being paid for each of them.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.

  executive of the Benefits Agency. He will reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mrs. Jane Kennedy, dated 20 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about measures being taken to review cases handled at the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) Unit in Blackpool.
  The Benefits Agency is committed to improving customer service by working towards the introduction of a One Stop service. Following the introduction of DLA in April 1992 the Agency has looked carefully at the options available in processing DLA claims and reviews.
  Currently new claims are the responsibility of Disability Benefits Centres (DBC) before the centralised unit in Blackpool takes over the case. Our research has shown that the three month period following the initial decision is the period of high activity and this also represents the prescribed time limit for applications for a review on any grounds.
  A pilot exercise is currently being carried out at Newcastle DBC where the file is retained at the DBC and almost all of the activity, including reviews, that arises in the three month period following the decision on a new claim is dealt with; some work done by specialist

  85
  sections, such as Motability agreements, is retained at the DLA Unit in Blackpool.
  If the pilot at Newcastle successfully demonstrates efficiency and an improved customer service, consideration will be given to extending the practice to other DBCs.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the absenteeism rate for(a) his Department (b) the Benefits Agency, (c) the Child Support Agency, (d) the Contributions Agency, (e) the Information Technology Services Agency, (f) the Resettlement Agency and (g) the War Pensions Agency in each year since 1991.

  Mr. Hague
  Information on sickness absence rates can be supplied in the form requested only for 1993, the latest year for which figures are available. The average number of working day's absence per staff year due to sickness was as follows:

  Department or Agency

  Days

  Department of Social Security

  12.2

  Benefits Agency

  12.8

  Child Support Agency

  9.8

  Contributions Agency

  11.0

  Information Technology Services Agency

  9.4

  Resettlement Agency

  14.6

  The War Pensions Agency was not in existence in 1993.

  In 1992, the average number of working days lost throughout the Department due to sickness was 9.3 and in 1991 the number was 11.2.

  State Earnings-related Pensions Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assumptions he has made about(a) the growth in the retail prices index and (b) the growth in earnings when changing the calculations of the earnings factors used to derive SERPS entitlement as proposed in the Pensions Bill;

  (2) if the changes in the calculation of the earnings factors used to derive SERPS entitlement contained in the Pensions Bill will (a) reduce the sum paid out to the pensioner from what it is currently forecast to be, (b) contain any element of retrospection and (c) impact in a regressive way;

  (3) what is his forecast of the cost or saving in paying out SERPS pensions brought about by the changes in the calculation of the earnings factors used to derive SERPS entitlement contained in the Pensions Bill;

  (4) if he will list by earnings decile the impact of the changes in the calculation of the earnings factors used to derive SERPS entitlement contained in the Pensions Bill by comparison with the forecast outcome under the present arrangement for the years (a) 2000–01, (b) 201011, (c) 2020–21, (d) 2030–31, (e) 2040–41 and (f) 2050–51;
  86
  (5) how the amount paid to SERPS beneficiaries will be affected by the changes in the calculation of the earnings factors used to derive SERPS entitlement from 6 April 2000 onwards contained in the Pensions Bill.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The changes in the calculation of earnings factors used to derive SERPS, as outlined in the Pensions Bill—annualisation of SERPS—is a technical change to the SERPS formula which will restore the original policy intention that SERPS entitlements are based on average earnings between the lower and upper earnings limit.

  The change will result in a recalculation of the amount of SERPS payable in respect of past years for those people who become entitled from 6 April 2000. There will be no loss for people who reach state pension age or qualify for widows benefits before that date.

  The maximum weekly reduction in individual entitlements, using the woman's current pension age, is estimated to be (a) £2.70, (b) £3.80, (c) £4.90, (d) £4.60 (e) £4.40 and (f) £4.40.

  This effect is flat rate and applies to those with a complete work history of earnings above the lower earnings limit since 1978 or age 16, whichever is the later. For those with broken work records, the effects will be smaller.

  Savings as a result of the change will amount to £400 million in 2010 rising to £2.3 billion by 2050. Projections assume that future upratings will continue to increase flat-rate benefits in line with prices and therefore have been calculated on 1994–95 prices. An assumed real earnings growth rate of 1.5 per cent. has been used.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual spending on family credit; and what was the spending on family income supplement in 1979.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The published forecast for family credit expenditure for 1994–95 is £1,276 million. This is 18 times more in real terms than the £24 million spent on family income supplement in 1978–79.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost to the public purse of administration of the habitual residence rules.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Since the habitual residence test was introduced in August 1994, we have been involved in evaluating and refining the operational procedures and we are not in a position to give the full annual cost of applying the test. These figures should become available by the end of this year.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the(a) average, (b) shortest and (c) longest time taken to process appeals against the adjudication officer's decision on habitual residence rules since the rules were introduced (i) in the Greater London area and (ii) in the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not collected' centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Childline
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money they provide to assist Childline, and what proportion it is of Childline's budget.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, government sources provided £256,812 to Childline in 1993–94. This was over one-thirteenth of its total expenditure.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Childline has revealed enormous distress and suffering among children, many of whom suffer physical and sexual abuse and are desperate for help? Is she further aware that of no less than 10,000 children who telephone Childline every day, 3,000 get through and 7,000 merely get the engaged signal as there is no money to expand the service? I am disturbed and incredulous that thousands of children can telephone for help and be refused that help simply because the Government provide less than one-fourteenth of the £4 million that is required. Will the noble Baroness do what she can to help? Will she recognise that this social problem is far too serious to be left to voluntary funding and that the Government should help more?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we share the admiration of the noble Lord for this organisation. It does sterling work. That is why we have supported it since it first started in 1986. It is not possible to accede to every request from every organisation. Since Childline started, however, the Government have supported it to the tune of £750,000.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year just under 82,000 children were helped by Childline, and yet for every 10,000 children who ring in each day only 3,000 receive help? The nightmare of these young children is absolutely desperate if, when they call, they cannot get an answer. That can only be put right by extra funds. Will the Minister agree to review the funding that the Government provide for Childline to assist it to help these desperate children?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are a number of children who write to Childlinė in addition to those who telephone in. Those letters are always answered. We know that the organisation has the most amazing ability to raise funds from other sources, and we congratulate it on that. Since last year it has managed to increase its income by 25 per cent. and has attracted
854
donations of over £3 million. It is not possible for the Government to supply resources to every charity that launches an appeal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it not be far better for the Government to lop off from the quite useless sums that are provided for the European Community—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bruce of Donington: It is quite clear to me that it would be better to devote at any rate some of the money to the purposes outlined by my noble friend. Surely, in a civilised country, they should have prior attention over subsidies to Spanish agriculture.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It has certainly started the week on a good note. I agree with the noble Lord that in this area we can lead the rest of Europe. Indeed, I am sure that other countries in Europe look to Childline to see what best practice to adopt.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, how can Britain lead the rest of Europe? Is it not the case that the figures given to the House today are a grim condemnation of a society in which such a large number of children are dealt with so cruelly? Should not the Government do rather more than simply provide a sum of money? Is it not time to institute a probing inquiry into the causes of cruelty to, and abuse of, children in Britain in 1995?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we give much more than the figures I mentioned to organisations and charities which support children. Indeed, only last Thursday we issued a practical guide to social workers on improving the services they give towards preventing abuse against children.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last year Childline set up a special service on school bullying, a specific area of child abuse which has been very topical in the past few months? That service answered 58,000 calls in the six months during which the line was open. Childline asked the Government for £20,000 in order to extend the service and that request was turned down.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we give to a whole range of organisations. The Pre-School Playgroups Association receives £500,000 a year; the National Children's Bureau, £443,000 a year. We give also to the National Council for Voluntary Child Care Organisations, Home Start, Kids Clubs Network, Kidscape, and all sorts of other organisations. It is not true that we do not support voluntary organisations in this area; we do. However, as noble Lords will know, the demand is insatiable. We have to set some priorities. We know that Childline has an amazing ability to raise funds from private sources—unlike perhaps the Alzheimer's Disease Society and others, which are less popular. We have to support them all in some way.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that she will not be diverted

855
by people riding hobby-horses about Europe? We are talking about rape, sodomy, bullying and vicious sexual assaults; we are talking about children in grave need, sadness and despair. They are children who need help. People who do not understand that should not come to this House and ride hobby-horses. They should listen. The Question is about those in very grave need. Will the Minister, who is always helpful, do something about it? Will she accept that the Government are not doing enough? There must be more government support. Does she agree that we cannot let these children be turned down, as they are at present?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much respect the noble Lord's sincerity. I share his view that child abuse in any form cannot be condoned. We have improved enormously our childcare services. It is interesting to see how many fewer children are now in care compared with 10 years ago. With regard to hobby-horses, I feel that if your Lordships were not allowed to ride them, this place would be the poorer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am sure that we all appreciate the sincerity of the Question. But is not Childline a voluntary organisation? Do we know whether it has approached bodies such as British Telecom to ask for assistance with its telephone lines? Do we know whether it is using the number of volunteers it could use to man the telephone lines? Does the noble Baroness agree that it is not just a matter of having telephone lines; it is also necessary to man them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, the organisation uses volunteers effectively. I understand that it has 500 people who help to man the lines. As my noble friend said, it has an amazing ability to raise funds. Last year it attracted income of well over £3 million from donations and covenants. It has just launched a new appeal. I can understand that it wishes to obtain support from the Houses of Parliament, both from your Lordships' Chamber and the other place. We have no reason to believe that it will not meet the targets that it has set itself.

Legal Aid
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to limit the extent under the legal aid scheme by which, as reportedly stated by the Lord Chancellor in The Times of 4th January 1995, "the money goes rolling out to the lawyers involved in the case".
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I am presently considering whether the present scheme should be replaced by one operated within a cash limit and based on a system of block contracts with a variety of different suppliers of legal services. I intend to develop this idea further in a Green Paper which I hope to publish in the spring.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that encouraging Answer. Will he
856
accept my assurance that his words, as quoted in the Starred Question, gave great encouragement to those of us who are very disturbed at the appalling outpouring of public money into legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In seeking to develop the idea to which I referred, I shall be grateful for any help that any of your Lordships care to tender to me.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, we very much welcome the statement made earlier by the noble and learned Lord to his noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I congratulate him on what is being done. But is he aware that some people have grave concern that those who appear to be very well off can obtain more legal aid much more easily than those who richly deserve it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is certainly a problem that those who appear—I emphasise "appear"—to be well off qualify under the rules for legal aid. I have sought to address that particular problem in a paper that I published earlier, taking up various suggestions for altering the rules, so that when they are applied to such people the result may differ from that under the present system. In addition to the propositions put to me, I have incorporated some other suggestions which have occurred to us in the paper. The consultation period is proceeding. Again, any proffered help will be very gratefully received.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that legal aid should be available to meet social need in meritorious cases? Does he further agree that, as a matter of principle, legal aid should not be subject to a blind financial cap regardless of merits?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I consider that the legal aid scheme would be better if it were possible for it to respond more readily to priorities than does the present scheme. The quotation in the Starred Question was in reply to a question to me about the present scheme and my difficulty in assigning priorities once an entitlement had been established. In the proposals that I am considering, I have no intention of imposing a blind cap. The idea would be to allot a sum of money with priorities as to how that sum of money should be spent. I hope that it may be possible to include in the scheme a degree of local priority as well as national priority.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as one who does not object in principle to cash limits—indeed, I was responsible for introducing them widely some time ago—can the noble and learned Lord explain how the system would work in the case of legal aid if, for example, earlier in the year the total amount of money allocated under cash limits was utilised? Would it mean that towards the end of the year many well-deserved cases would be refused the money?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord met this argument when, in his earlier days, he proposed an extension of the cash limited system to other areas that previously it did not cover. I have no doubt that he disposed of it very well by pointing out that, where somebody has a given sum of money to

857
apply over a period such as a year, wise planning requires that it is not all spent at the beginning of the year but is spread in such a way that it will be used evenly. The success of the cash limited schemes introduced by the noble Lord show that his arguments in that connection were correct.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, when my noble and learned friend is considering priorities, will he confirm my belief that certain types of litigation—for example, defamation cases—are still excluded from legal aid? As a matter of national priorities, is it not possible to devise a system whereby certain types of litigation have a lower priority than others?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a possibility under a scheme that I have in mind. It would be a welcome addition with a more flexible type of allocation of priority than exists at the moment. As my noble and learned friend says, defamation is and always has been excluded. It is a rigorous type of priority in relation to defamation, but it is more difficult under the present scheme to have any kind of gradation of priorities between not allowing a case at all and allowing it in fully. There is also scope for regional and local differentiation in priorities.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord consider another matter? I refer not only to the question of who is entitled to legal aid, but also to the actual cost of justice. Will the noble and learned Lord consider whether refreshers are a natural and entirely admirable way of payment for the fees of barristers? If so, will he consider whether there might be refreshers for some of us who attend the House of Lords?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships' arrangements depend, among other things, upon a subsistence rate which varies according to the time for which your Lordships are present. That is the underlying principle of the refresher. But the system of fees is also a matter that I want to consider in relation to this proposal. The Bar Council has proposed for some time—I am endeavouring to implement the principles of it—a graduated fee system which would make it easier to make arrangements along the lines that I am proposing if we go down this road.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, just to put the record straight, is not the obsolete term "refresher" simply another way of talking about the daily rate?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought that that was the substance of what I was trying to say. It is a matter of opinion what one calls it. In this House we call it a subsistence allowance on a daily basis. But the time a case takes is one factor that is relevant to the amount the person taking the case should be paid. Precisely how that is determined is a matter for judgment in relation to specific classes of case.

Housing Benefit
2.55 p.m.
Lord Milvertonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What estimate they have made of the cost implications for housing benefit following the deregulation of private rents under the Housing Act 1988.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the deregulation of the private rented sector is only one of several factors which have a cost implication for housing benefit. It is not therefore possible to make a reliable estimate of the cost implications of deregulation alone. The amount of housing benefit rent allowance expenditure increased from £1.1 billion in 1988–89 to an estimated £3.8 billion in 1993–94.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, can he say whether, possibly through unforeseen consequences of the policy, the current bill has risen to a figure in excess of £9 billion? If so, has the House been informed of that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the £9 billion to which my noble friend refers is the total cost of housing benefit. That is made up of three parts. The first is payments to local authorities via rent rebates; the second is payments to housing associations; and the third relates to payments to the private rented sector. My noble friend gives a figure of £9 billion (which is perhaps from the year before 1993–94) but that is for housing benefit across the whole field and not merely for the private rented sector.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the Minister tell us a little more about the relationship between housing benefit and average rents? For instance, in 1979 the average rent was £4.75, the equivalent of which today would be £13. In fact, average rents are way above the £100 limit in some cases. That is relevant when we talk of housing benefit. Can the Minister tell us something about the equation between housing benefit and average rents?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I mentioned in my original Answer, a number of factors play a part in the increase from just over £1 billion to just over £4 billion. For example, part of that is accounted for by housing association tenants, in which there has been an increase; part of it is accounted for because of an increase in unemployment and people now needing to claim benefit who did not need to claim it before; part of it comes from inflation over the years; and part from an increase in market rents. However, part of the increase came from the introduction of deregulation, the object of which was to halt the decline in the private rented sector. That happened and we have both better accommodation on the market in the private rented sector and 200,000 more units available in the past four or five years.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the National Federation of Housing Associations said, without equivocation, that the

859
problem is the high rents since 1988? The federation is pressing for adequate subsidies in order to keep rents at an affordable level. What are the poor to do if rents rise and they are faced with the problem of a government who want to restrict benefits such as housing benefit? There must be a policy of ensuring that affordable rents are available for very poor people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, accommodation must be available for all people, including the very poor, and the housing benefit system is designed for just that. But in addition to being fair to the tenant, one must also be fair to the landlord to encourage him to bring his property to the market. As I explained, that has happened since 1988. One must also be fair to the taxpayer. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that there will be a limit to the amount of money which will be paid in housing benefit on above average rents. Both the tenant and the landlord should be able to look at a market where neither thinks that the taxpayer is standing behind whatever rent they agree on.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that the amount that can be paid in rent is totally unlimited at the moment? One London borough claims that the housing benefit total which it administers for the Government has increased since 1988 from £30 million to £100 million. I take the opposite side from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on this issue. I think that there should be a definite ceiling, as some people are getting housing benefit on properties costing £300 a week or more for one person in occupation. If there was a limit well below that level more money would be available to help those people who really need affordable accommodation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right that the taxpayer cannot pay for a system in which someone would house himself at the taxpayers' expense in a property markedly more expensive than he would at his own expense. That is why we have taken steps to deal with extremely expensive property. It is also why my right honourable friend announced that housing benefit will be able to meet market rents up to the point of the average rent for that kind of property in that area. Above that average the housing benefit system will pay 50 per cent. of the difference between the average and the market rent. We believe that that will strike the right balance between the landlord, the tenant and the taxpayer.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister also agree that there is another group which gravely needs to see some limit set on rents? I refer to students, who are excluded from housing benefit.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as my noble friend rightly points out, the Government decided quite correctly that students are supported through the student grant system and through the student loans which are now available. Students ought not to be dependent on the benefits system which is designed for another and quite different group of people. We think
860
that is the case and therefore the question of rents for students does not arise within the housing benefit system.

Youth Services
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Davidasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of recent proposals to reorganise the National Youth Agency and cut its budget for 1995–96, they remain committed to the youth service.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords. The Department for Education's objectives include support for statutory and voluntary youth services. They also include the broader aim of furthering the personal, social and moral development of young people. The National Youth Agency is currently the subject of a periodic policy review. The review team's interim conclusions have now gone out to consultation. Ministers will not be formulating their views until the final report is submitted. I have placed a copy of the interim report and evidence in the Library.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, is he aware that there is still considerable doubt among all those involved in the youth service about the commitment of the Government because of what they have done? Is he further aware that the Youth Service Advisory Committee and the maintained youth service sector are very concerned at the department's recent proposal to dismember the National Youth Agency and restructure it without consultation with the voluntary sector and to cut the agency's budget by £200,000? Why is there a need for change, and why the haste? It is only four years since the National Youth Agency was set up. Can the Government never leave anything alone and give those who are clearly involved and have a great commitment a proper chance to get the thing going?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, every non-departmental public body is subject to review every five years and it is quite proper that that should be so. In the case of the National Youth Agency, as I said in my first reply, the interim report has been published. Ministers have yet to take a position on it. Indeed, they will not take a position until the final report has been published. Many organisations were consulted in the run-up to the interim report. That included a very large number of voluntary organisations. It is open to any organisation, voluntary or otherwise, which has opinions based on the interim report to submit them to the department and to Ministers. They will then be considered.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the review was published only before Christmas and the responses have to be in by the middle of February? That is not much time.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there are two elements to my answer to the noble Baroness. First, most organisations—indeed, so far as we know, all major organisations concerned with the youth service—have

861
been involved in the consultation in the run-up to the interim report. Secondly, the department believes that there is enough time between now and the spring to produce the final report and to make the decisions thereon. If that turns out not to be the case, decisions will not be made in haste. They will be made in a proper time.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, were the local authority associations consulted about the increased responsibilities which it is suggested they should undertake in this reorganisation? If they were not consulted, and if they are not supportive, as I believe to be the case, do the Government have any fall-back proposals to take over part of the funding and the responsibilities which it was proposed the local authority associations should assume?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, the local authority associations were consulted. We are aware that they have concerns about the proposals in the interim report. They are due to see my honourable friend the Minister responsible for further and higher education shortly. As I have said, Ministers have yet to form a view on these proposals. This is the report of an interim working group and are not the Government's own proposals.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the statement in The Times Educational Supplement of last week, where the leader says:
"the National Youth Agency is threatened with dismemberment by the Department for Education, apparently because it provided a very effective national voice for a youth service under threat, but proved less amenable to toeing the official line.
In particular the NYA, under its outspoken director, Janet Paraskeva, has fought hard to save youth service funding from the increasingly damaging effects of local spending cuts"?
Is there any truth in that, or is this usually very responsible newspaper indulging in baseless, groundless and senseless speculation?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would not dream of saying any such thing about The Times Educational Supplement. But on this occasion there is no truth in that thought. We do not envisage under any circumstances the dissolution of the National Youth Agency, which has done a great deal of good work. All that is taking place is an ordinary review of how best the National Youth Agency should be funded and how best it should achieve its objectives.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on child support.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "farm business tenancy"]:
Lord Cartermoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("conditions") insert ("or the agricultural condition").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. With this group of amendments we return to the interesting discussion we had in Committee on the definition and the nature of a farm business tenancy proposed under the Bill. In Committee we discovered the extraordinary irony that the Government have succeeded in producing an Agricultural Tenancies Bill in which the new agricultural tenancy does not have to meet the agriculture condition. With this group of amendments we hope to put that anomaly right to some extent and also to deal with the real concern expressed in Committee and outside the House about the need to put the essential terms of the farm business tenancy in writing.
I say immediately that it is clear from the amendments that we are not attempting to change the fact that there are three conditions in Clause 1 of the Bill; the business condition, the agriculture condition and the notice condition. We accept that, but we believe that the amendments and the argument I shall be developing turn round the Government's approach to one which we believe is more sensible.
We suggest that there should be an obligatory notice in writing—the notice conditions in the Bill are optional—which will also set out the terms of the tenancy. We propose no restriction on those terms. This is not a prescriptive amendment, to use the phrase which the Minister constantly deployed in Committee. We do not propose any restrictions beyond those already in the Bill.
Having established that the obligatory notice shall be in writing and set out the terms of the tenancy, then either the business or the agricultural conditions can be fulfilled. At this stage we accept reluctantly, although we may wish to come back to the issue at Third Reading, the extraordinary idea developed in Committee which the Government appeared to be entirely happy with; namely, once a farm business tenancy, always a farm business tenancy. I believe that we all agreed, including Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber, that it was odd that once a farm business tenancy had started then, no matter what happened afterwards, one remained in that circumstance. The example we had was the farm which became a golf course with a small field and four chickens in it, although it still remained a farm business tenancy.
The idea of the obligatory notice in writing is not new. Perhaps I may quote from the Housing Act 1988, Chapter II, Section 20(2), as regards an assured shorthold tenancy. It states:
"The notice referred to in subsection (1)(c) above is one which—

(a) is in such form as may be prescribed;

863

(b) is served before the assured tenancy is entered into;

(c) is served by the person who is to be the landlord under the assured tenancy on the person who is to be the tenant under that tenancy; and

(d) states that the assured tenancy to which it relates is to be a shorthold tenancy".

There is not a great deal between that proposal and what is already in the Bill which I am not attempting to amend except in one important respect. We suggest that the notice should set out the principal terms of the tenancy.
Perhaps I may deal with the notice having to be in writing. At Committee stage we were all unclear about the oral agreement. For reasons which I understand, the Government believe that if they require all farm business tenancies to be in writing, people will make oral agreements in order to get round the Bill. The noble Earl kindly agreed in Committee to write to me to explain the situation and that he did.
Without in the least wishing to comment on the opacity of the noble Earl's letter, which I am sure he had some help in drafting, I believe, having read it four times, that I am now beginning to understand what it says. Perhaps we may make sure that we all understand it. There was a lack of clarity and understanding throughout the Committee.
In the letter the noble Earl says:
"As I said in the debate, section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 provides that a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land"—
and obviously a tenancy is an "interest in land"—
"must be in writing. Short leases are excluded from this provision. A short lease is a lease for a term not exceeding three years at the best rent that can reasonably be obtained without taking a premium".
The noble Earl was careful in Committee to say that the Bill would not remove agricultural tenancies from the normal law of property. As I understand it, the only oral agreements then can be short leases, provided that that is a correct understanding of the letter. It will be extremely helpful to the House if it is made clear whether oral agreements apply only to leases of less than three years.
Amendment No. 3 states that the notice condition should set out,
"the terms of the proposed tenancy".
In Committee on 12th December, at col. 1133 of the Official Report, the Minister said,
"It is no part of a deliberately simply and streamlined Bill"—
and the Bill is certainly that—
"to write in provisions about deemed covenants for oral agreements. It is for the parties to decide what conditions and arrangements should apply in respect of their agreements, whether written or oral in nature. It is not for the Government to do so. The whole point of the Bill is to allow the parties to an agreement maximum freedom to decide on the terms which suit them best".
As always, having read that and having been persuaded by the eloquence and oratory of the noble Earl, we have accepted that point. We have allowed the two sides to state what the tenancy should be in the notice conditions. Having agreed what they are, they should at least be set out in the notice.
864
Clause 13(2) deals with arbitration. We also return to the phrase, "the terms of the tenancy", where the arbitrator has to take into account all the relevant factors. There will certainly be discussion about that in later amendments. Those factors include in every case the terms of the tenancy. The phrase to which I have referred is already in the Bill. We have taken it from there and put it into the notice condition.
In the next group of amendments we shall be dealing with the need for guidance. Under the terms of the tenancy that could be part of the non-statutory guidance. I emphasise that we are proposing a very simple and not over-prescriptive approach. If the landlord and tenant wish to set up a farm business tenancy they exchange notices which are obviously in writing. They say that they intend to do this or that. The notice will include the main terms of the tenancy and, as I say, it is entirely up to the parties to decide what the terms are.
In Clause 1(4) (a) (i) the notice shall identify,
"the land to be comprised in the proposed tenancy".
So there is already one term of the tenancy in the Bill. That having been achieved, the tenancy agreement is signed. As long as it either fulfils the business or the agricultural condition, there is a farm business tenancy. If the oral agreement for a term in excess of three years has to be in writing under the Act which I have quoted, and if the agreement is for less than that period, it is highly unlikely that the landlord and tenant will exchange a written notice and then have an oral agreement. But if they do so—and we have not attempted to change it in the Bill —and if our amendments are accepted, provided the oral agreement fulfils either the business or agricultural conditions there will then be a farm business tenancy. If the oral tenancy is for over three years that will be left to the courts in any event, which is the case at the moment.
We have come a long way to meet the Government. We have accepted the three conditions; namely, the notice condition, the business condition and the agricultural condition. But we have altered their order of importance. We ask the Government to consider that the notice condition should be the obligatory one in writing with the terms of the tenancy as decided by the landlord and tenant. Then, as long as the tenancy in practice fulfils either the business or agricultural condition, there will be a farm business tenancy. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for explaining the reasoning behind the amendment so clearly. I am also grateful for the fact that he has accepted the broad structure of Clause 1 as drafted.
I have to say that I see two fundamental flaws with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. First, as their name implies, farm business tenancies are business tenancies, yet Amendment No. 1 would make it unnecessary for them to comply with the business conditions. If the noble Lord had his way, land let solely for non-commercial hobby farming or for grazing a pet pony could be let under a farm business tenancy. This is not the purpose of the legislation.

865
The second flaw is much more serious. The amendment would make the notice conditions mandatory. It is true that we expect—and indeed would wish—many parties to comply with the notice conditions, but we cannot force people to do so and the status of their tenancy should not depend on this. Some people, particularly those who need short agricultural tenancies so that they can, for example, grow specialist crops on clean land, may see the notice requirement as a bureaucratic waste of time, not relevant in their circumstances as they have no intention of diversifying out of agriculture. Others will forget to exchange notices or, if they do not take professional advice, will not realise that it is necessary. If this amendment was accepted, what would be the legal status of those tenancies?
If the lettings were for business purposes, in all probability they would be subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. We concluded some years ago that that legislation was inappropriate for agricultural tenancies. There might also be some which were not subject to the 1954 Act in which case they would most likely be subject only to common law rules. Those people, to their surprise no doubt, would find that they were not subject to the same rules that govern other agricultural lettings. This would give rise to considerable confusion. At the end of a tenancy tenants might find that they were not entitled to compensation for improvements even if these had been made with the landlord's consent. On the other hand, if the 1954 Act applied, landlords might find that the tenant had the right to a new tenancy. This would present a trap for the unwary not unlike that posed by Section 2 of the 1986 Act; and that is precisely the type of provision we are so anxious to avoid. Provisions of this nature undermine confidence and would discourage lettings.
The noble Lord asked about oral agreements and whether they apply to short leases only. The answer is yes, for terms of less than three years or for tenancies from year to year. Oral agreements which purport to be for longer terms than that are void in law.
Amendment No. 3 proposes that the terms of the tenancy should be set out in the notice. I am afraid that therein lies a further flaw. The proposed amendment would, in effect, make the notices which are exchanged before the tenancy is granted a rehearsal of the tenancy agreement itself.
Although I understand what the noble Lord seeks to achieve with this amendment, I fear that he runs the very substantial risk of negating the entire purpose of having the notice at all. It is essential that parties can exchange, where they choose to do so, a simple notice which states in the clearest possible terms that the tenancy on offer is to be a farm business tenancy. Clause 1(4) (a) sets out all that the notices need to say. All questions of terms and conditions ought to be dealt with in the tenancy agreement itself as a matter between parties. We want to avoid creating the position where a tenant was faced with a great list of terms which failed to highlight that a farm business tenancy was on offer.
Worst of all, what if the notice failed to incorporate all of the agreed terms? It is possible that parties might want to make last-minute minor changes after
866
exchanging notices but before the tenancy is granted. If none of those affected the business or agriculture conditions, there ought not to be any difficulty over such late changes. However, if the terms set out in the notice condition did not correspond with the actual tenancy agreement, it would be possible for parties to challenge the validity of the notices which had been exchanged—and thus the true status of the tenancy itself. That would be an easy trap to fall into and a serious one. Not surprisingly, therefore, the industry does not favour this proposal.
I hope that with this further explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I get the impression from the Minister's reply that he is not very keen on this group of amendments. He seems to have made quite a meal of what was intended to be a helpful approach to a matter that we discussed at length in Committee. I certainly did not want to repeat all of that discussion about the nature or definition of a farm business tenancy. We think that this is the right approach to take. I agree that, if accepted, the notice conditions would be mandatory, as are the provisions which I read out in the Housing Act 1988 for assured shorthold tenancies. Is the Minister saying that the approach that was adopted in the Housing Act for assured shorthold tenancies should not apply to agricultural tenancies? If so, I find that extremely surprising.
The Minister referred to those who grow specialist crops. I am involved, for example, in the growing of carrots which over-year. The exchange of notices can be very simple. One already has to go through quite a performance as a result of Gladstone v. Bower. There will have to be something in writing for specialist crops. I am sure that a simple notice could be drawn up.
It is possible that the parties could forget to exchange notices. That is feasible, although one assumes that it will not happen once the provisions have been made clear. The next group of amendments will deal with the guidance which I think that the Government should give to those who are considering a farm business tenancy. As I remember it, in Committee we heard about the "impecunious landlord" and the "nervous landlord"; apparently we now have the forgetful landlord.
The Minister referred to the business conditions not being met in relation to hobby farming. However, Clause 1(2) states that the business conditions are,
"that all or part of the land comprised in the tenancy is farmed".
We debated whether it should be farmed or occupied and the Minister said that it was important that the word "farmed" should remain in the provisions because it related to an agricultural activity. Clause 1(2) continues:
"for the purposes of a trade or business, and
(b) that, since the beginning of the tenancy, all or part of the land so comprised has been so farmed".
The Minister referred to tenants having to operate under different sets of rules. That will be the case now in any event because all the tenancies that derive from the 1986 Act will be working after 1st September 1995 while all the tenancies that will be drawn up once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament will work under this legislation. Although there is no way of proving it, I

867
suspect that initially a larger number of tenancies will operate under the 1986 Act than under this legislation. At the moment, out of the comparatively small proportion of land which is let at arm's length—the figure that we discussed both on Second Reading and in Committee varied between 25 and 35 per cent.—it is likely that the larger proportion operates under the 1986 Act. I suspect that that will continue to be the case. The effect of that Act will last for a long time yet because, as we have all agreed, we have only just reached the first generation of succession—and not even that in some cases.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his confirmation that oral agreements apply only to short leases of less than three years and that oral agreements relating to leases of longer than three years are void. If that is the case, I am not entirely clear why the Government are so concerned about sweeping in oral agreements and not requiring the tenancy agreement to be in writing. We discussed that previously. If the oral agreement stands up in law only for short leases of less than three years, I do not understand the Government's fear that, if they do not allow oral agreements to be included in the Bill, everybody will rush out to agree them.
It is entirely sensible that the main terms should be agreed. The contract between the landlord and tenant could easily allow for late changes up to the time that the tenancy agreement is drafted. There is no earthly reason why the contract should not state, "These are the main terms", and that a subsection cannot state, "The terms can be altered up to the moment that the tenancy agreement is signed". Once the agreement is signed, the terms are laid down.
For all those reasons, I do not think that the Minister's reply was satisfactory. I am disappointed because I had hoped that the noble Earl might be prepared either to accept our argument or to take it away for consideration. As he is not prepared to do so, I must ask the opinion of the House.
3.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Barnett, L.

Ezra, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Geraint, L.

Carter, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]s

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

David, B.

Gregson, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Grey, E.

Desai, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Haskel, L.

868

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Nicol, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ogmore, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Richard, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Russell, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stallard, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mayhew, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Molloy, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Monkswell, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harlech, L.

Ailsa, M.

Harvington, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hayter, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hooper, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Barnard, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ironside, L.

Blaker, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Knollys, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Burnham, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lyell, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Manchester, D.

Carnarvon, E.

Manton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Merrivale, L.

Carnock, L.

Mersey, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Milverton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Morris, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Moyne, L.

Courtown, E.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranworth, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Palmer, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Polwarth, L.

Faithfull, B.

Pym, L.

Finsberg, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Savile, L.

Gridley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shannon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Simon, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

869

Somerset, D.

Teviot, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Teynham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trumpington, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Vivian, L.

Strange, B.

Wakeham, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Swansea, L.

Wharton, B.

Terrington, L.

Wise, L.

Wynford, L.

[*The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 127 names. The Clerks recorded 126 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]

Child Support
3.38 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should now like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"The 1991 Child Support Act established the principle that parents are responsible for their children—both parents —even if they live apart. Taxpayers should pay only to the extent that parents cannot afford to do so. The whole House endorsed that principle, when it passed the Act, without a single dissenting vote. I reaffirm it today.
"But the whole House has also had growing concerns about the practical application of that principle and the operations of the agency. I responded rapidly to early concerns by introducing reforms last February. I promised then to keep the system under review, and I committed the Government to respond positively to the Social Security Select Committee's second report. In the light of that report and the experience of the first year and a half I am persuaded that further significant change is required.
"The proposals in the White Paper incorporate the majority of the Select Committee's recommendations, and in some cases they go further. Altogether, I believe our proposals will enable the system to achieve its original purpose. They will make maintenance assessments fairer, improve thė service offered by the agency, and ensure that maintenance assessed becomes maintenance paid. I believe that that is what Parliament wants.
"The major focus of criticism of the Child Support Act relates to past settlements of property or capital. Some of those criticisms are based on misconceptions. However much property was transferred, there never could be a 'clean break' from your children. Parents or the state always could return to court to seek increased child maintenance. Also the current formula does indirectly reflect property transfers. Nonetheless, it is true that the formula does not explicitly reflect the value of property or capital transfers which were intended to contribute to child maintenance. To establish how much of any past
870
property settlement was in lieu of child maintenance is often very difficult. It involves the exercise of judgment and discretion.
"To give the agency and appeal tribunals discretion to amend assessments to reflect past property settlements will require primary legislation. I therefore intend to bring in a Bill in the current Session. But primary legislation means the new arrangements cannot be up and running before 1996–97. And I want to give some recognition now. So I propose, from this April, to introduce into the formula a 'broad brush' allowance for past property transfers. It will assume half the equity belonged to each partner. Where the absent parent transferred more than £5,000 of his share of the equity there will be set allowances in the formula for amounts falling in three broad bands. A parent who finds that the 'broad brush' allowance does not sufficiently reflect his property settlement may seek a departure from the formula under the new discretionary powers.
"I also propose to allow strictly limited discretion to prevent hardship by taking account of some other expenses that are not in the formula. These will include high costs of visiting children, extra costs of supporting a disabled dependant, exceptional costs of caring for stepchildren and certain debts of the former relationship.
"Madam Speaker, I also intend to make a number of amendments to the maintenance formula. First, I want to encourage people to continue working even where they have to travel long distances. Calculating actual travel costs would be burdensome for everyone. So instead, for parents who live more than 15 miles from their place of employment, I will introduce a 'broad brush' allowance. An automatic calculation will avoid the need for detailed inquiries to be made about actual travel costs. If this works out much too high or too low either parent will in due course be able to apply for a discretionary adjustment.
"Secondly, I will let absent parents who have a new partner or stepchildren deduct all their reasonable housing costs.
"Thirdly, I shall put a ceiling on assessments of 30 per cent. of net income, (or the minimum payment of £2.30), so absent parents will be able to keep at least 70 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance. And even those who are also paying off arrears will be allowed to keep at least two-thirds of normal net income. This reassurance goes beyond anything recommended by the Social Security Select Committee, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by the House.
"Fourthly, the maximum amount payable under the formula can be very high, especially where there are several children. I intend to halve the maximum additional amount payable above basic maintenance.
"In addition, to encourage absent parents to co-operate, where an absent parent provides basic information within four weeks I will defer the start of his maintenance liability for eight weeks.

871
"Madam Speaker, most of the measures that I have announced will make assessments fairer for absent parents. Indeed, no absent parent will now be able reasonably to refuse to pay their child maintenance. As a result, these measures will also help parents with care and their children by securing maintenance more speedily. Even where maintenance already being paid is reduced as a result of these changes, parents with care on income support will not lose money, since income support is adjusted immediately. However, awards of family credit and disability working allowance are set for six months. For those whose maintenance drops because of the changes, the Government will provide some compensation for the rest of the award period.
"Some commentators have argued for maintenance to be disregarded in calculating income support. But that would make it much more difficult for a parent with care to improve her family's standard of living by returning to work. Instead, I propose that parents with care who are on income support or jobseeker's allowance will be able to build up a new maintenance credit of up to £5 a week. This will be paid as a lump sum when they start work. It will give parents with care an increased interest in receiving maintenance and enhance their incentive to work.
"Madam Speaker, the Child Support Agency has performed less well than I would wish, in spite of hard work by its staff. But the agency has already taken steps to improve its performance. In December, the agency announced two measures to help it manage its outstanding cases. These involved deferring the take-on of parents with care on income support who have not asked or provided sufficient information for the agency to pursue maintenance. All parents with care who continue on benefit will, in due course, be taken on by the agency. And there is no question of deferring action against unco-operative absent parents.
"Nonetheless, the policy changes announced today will impose further work on the agency. I do not want the agency to add unnecessarily to its backlog, but to devote its resources to its current workload. Cases where there was a court order or maintenance agreement before April 1993 and the parent with care is not on benefit were due to have access to the agency at the initiative of either parent from 1996. I now propose to defer take-on of these cases. I will ensure they retain the right to use the courts. And I will also give them the right for a fee to use the agency's collection and enforcement service.
"Some absent parents have suffered through no fault of their own from delays in making assessments, resulting in huge bills for arrears. In these cases, we will not enforce more than six months' arrears, provided that the absent parent agrees to pay them and to pay his ongoing liability for maintenance. After a year, it will be clear whether the absent parent is meeting his obligation and, if so, we shall compensate the parent with care for any financial loss. I have decided to stop charging fees and interest
872
for two years from April 1995. After that, fees will be reintroduced and interest replaced by a late payment penalty.
"On Thursday I intend to lay a set of minor technical amendments to regulations, which will further help the administration of the scheme. Many of the changes that I am announcing today will take effect from this April. The formula will change, interest payments will be abolished and fees will be suspended. The agency will be writing to all its clients about these changes. There is no need for parents to contact the agency. Primary legislation is needed to introduce discretion into the maintenance formula and for other changes including deferring take on of non-benefit cases. Subject to the approval of Parliament, these changes will take effect during 1996–97. From April 1997 the new maintenance credit scheme and late payment penalties will start and fees will be re-introduced. None of these changes will apply retrospectively.
"Madam Speaker, legislation involving children, broken families and money will always arouse strong emotions. This is certainly the experience of Australia's Child Support Agency even after six years of operation. But I believe these changes will improve our child support scheme for both parents. They will take account of property or capital settlements, give flexibility to prevent hard cases, allow for high travel-to-work costs, help absent parents with step-families, reduce the maximum level of maintenance and ensure that absent parents normally keep more than 70 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance. These changes should encourage and enable more absent parents to pay child maintenance regularly. As a result, they will give more parents with care and their children the chance of a better life. I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I thank him personally for making available to me the White Paper and the Statement earlier than is often the case. That was extremely helpful.
Rather like the poll tax, and for many of the same reasons, the Child Support Agency was always going to be trouble because it brought 20 million people into the net of DSS to pay out very large sums of money, overriding court settlements and, in many cases, throwing family and financial lives into catastrophe.
As the Minster rightly said, no one doubts that parents may divorce each other, but not their children. It is right and proper that adequate contributions should be made to their children's maintenance. But, as this House has repeated on many occasions, those contributions from the absent parent have too often not been appropriate and have not taken account of the circumstances: second families, stepchildren, unexpected additional costs, property and clean-break settlements. Only belatedly following the orders of 12 months ago—last February—were the new arrangements phased in.

873
In addition, as the Minister has recognised, the agency's staff has had too vast a job and inadequate time in which to be thoroughly trained. The ombudsman's report of last week is a devastating catalogue of mistake after mistake: mistaken identity, inadequate procedures, failure to answer correspondence, incorrect advice, delay in assessment and delay in payments to parents with children.
Thirdly, not only was the formula unfair to the absent parent, not only has there been a catalogue of administrative mistakes but seldom, if ever, did the arrangements benefit the parent with care. Benefit was lost pound for pound and in the process, parents with care lost the certain income from the DSS. That was replaced by uncertain income coming from irregular maintenance payments. Very often lost with it were the associated passported benefits such as free school meals. Not only were most parents with care not better off; very many were worse off as a result of the Government's changes.
I repeat that Labour has always supported the belief that both parents should contribute to the maintenance of their children. We have called for a more flexible financial formula. Secondly, we have called for an appeals procedure. Thirdly, we have called for a disregard, even a modest sum, for those parents with care so that, at the very least, women should be no worse off than they were on income support. After all, women with care are often the poorest, taking half of the Social Fund loans. They are often in debt, with top-slicing for fuel and water bills. Their children risk being poorly fed, poorly clothed and falling behind at school.
Against that, how adequate is the Government's Statement today? How adequate are the proposals which we shall see reflected both in the amendments which will be before us shortly and in the promised primary legislation? First, many of the proposals, especially those which affect absent parents, are greatly to be welcomed and we do welcome them.
The Government are proposing discretionary appeal procedures where otherwise hardship would result for the absent parent. That is splendid. Back on 9th February 1994, when we pressed the Minister to provide such a procedure, he said that to introduce discretion "is not practical" and would not work. We are delighted that, if belatedly, the Government have come around to our point of view.
Secondly, the Minister referred to property and capital transfers. We are delighted about that. Again, that was rejected by the Minister on 9th February 1994 on the ground that the formula already took account of that. Today we are delighted to see that the Minister has qualified it and has said that all such settlements are not fully taken into account and that in future they will be. We welcome that.
Thirdly, the Minister proposes changes in the formula such as a statutory maximum of 30 per cent., which we welcome, along with costs of travel to work, which we welcome, and, above all, support for stepchildren where there is no other means of support, which we welcome. However, we shall wish to reflect on the point of maximum maintenance payments. We welcome those changes.
874
Fourthly, we believe that the Minister is wise to defer the addition of new cases but that is only if it is deferral and not abandonment. On this side of the House we do not wish to see a Child Support Agency for the poor and court settlements for the rich. Will the Minster give us an indication of the timescale in which he expects those additional cases to be brought back into a common procedure for all?
Therefore, this is a whole series of changes benefiting absent parents, which we are delighted to support. We only wish that the changes had come earlier, as so many of us from all sides of the House have consistently argued.
However, what about parents with care? The Minister was surprisingly silent in his Statement about the implications for parents with care. Obviously, we are especially pleased about the modest adjustments to family credit because many of us in this House have long lobbied for those. But at the heart of the Minister's response there was no mention or proposal for any modest disregard so that parents with care might keep even a modest sum—£8, £10 or £5—from the maintenance paid before there was a pound for pound deduction from benefit.
That really will not do. I recognise that the Social Security Committee did not vote for it. It was a divided committee in which the Conservative Members went one way—they held the majority—and the Labour Party Members went another. Therefore, the Chairman had to abstain. But that will not do. The Government have responded to the sharp-elbowed—the men—and they are right to do so; but they have ignored the plight of those who cannot walk away, who cannot go on strike and who cannot defy the law—that is, the parent, usually the mother, with care.
What sort of signal are we sending out from this House today? Is it that if you defy the law changes are made, but if you obey the law and care for your children you are ignored? Mothers with care are poor. They are often worse off under this system than they are on income support. They and their children need a modest disregard but because the mothers do not go on strike, the Government have ignored their plight.
Secondly, the Government are giving a roll-up credit of £5 per week for when lone mothers return to work. That is downright perverse. It is when mothers are not in work that they especially need the bonus, not when they have returned to work. The Government's line seems to be that when they are earning some money they will give them a little more, but when they are not earning even that, they are given nothing at all.
Thirdly, are we really saying that two very young children, perhaps under the age of five, who have already lost one parent—the father—should now lose the lone parent to work away from home in order to be eligible for the bonus? It may be that that is the mother's choice as she desperately trades time with her children against financial support for them. But again, what sort of signal is this House sending out about family values when we are so obsessed with the Treasury's well-being that we ignore that of the children?

875
Of course, we welcome the bonus but only in addition to a disregard for mothers with care and not in place of it.
Therefore, overall, the White Paper and the Statement mark a substantial retreat by the Government; and they are wise to do so. We are delighted that there is a proper recognition of the problems that the Child Support Agency and the Government's legislation have presented to absent fathers, although it is striking that the Minister did not mention the cost involved at any time in the Statement. But the problems of the parent with care have not been addressed. It is a one-sided response to those who have shouted loudest. We should have hoped for a more even-handed response than that from the Government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, on this subject, if it is not too Irish a statement, glasshouses are not confined to one side of the House. For that reason, I am not going to throw stones. But equally for that reason, I should like to pay tribute to those in this House and outside it who saw from the beginning what this Act would mean: first and foremost, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, whom I am delighted to see in his place, the noble Lords, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Lord Mishcon and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and on my Benches, my noble friends Lord Meston and Lord McGregor of Durris. I have learnt a lot from listening to them. I am glad to see that the Minister has also done so.
Last September, when we discussed this matter at the Liberal Democrat party conference, we set out a series of criteria to test amendments to the Act to see whether they were sufficient. The first concerned substantial changes in the formula. In that regard, we are given a great deal of what we asked for, even if not all, and for that I am very grateful. Secondly, we proposed real grounds of appeal—I shall probe that aspect later—and, thirdly, that the changes should benefit both sexes.
Lady Mary Wortley Montagu was once asked to comment on a certain Lord Harvey and replied that the human race was divided into men, women and Harveys. Nowadays, it is divided into men, women and the Treasury. The greatest of the three is the Treasury. One of the things I most deplore about the handling of the Act is the fact that it has been defended by continual attempts to set division between men and women. We already have enough of that; we do not need any more of it.
For that reason, like the noble Baroness, I deeply regret that there is so little in the legislation for the parents with care. Similarly, I welcome, as did the noble Baroness, the changes in the assessment of family credit. In fact, I am delighted by them. However, the big changes that were needed have not been proposed. There is nothing about a disregard. If the legislation is to have enough friends to survive—which, I believe, is still in doubt—it is essential that some people should be better off because of the Act. I say that because women who come on maintenance under the legislation will lose passported benefits. That is not regularly the case at present.
876
Where we are dealing with the support of children, free school meals are especially crucial. Therefore, that aspect must be given attention if the Act is to survive. Similarly, there has never been any case for the benefit penalty. If there were a disregard, we could then use a carrot instead of a stick. That is a much more effective way of securing compliance.
Much of the detail in the Statement is good and, in some places, extremely good. We owe our thanks to the department and in particular to Mr. Burt, who has been in charge, for proving, even if a little belatedly, that he can be a listening Minister, and, above all, for being a Minister to whom the Treasury has, in part, listened. There are not many of those.
It is a slightly overstated claim to say that property settlements are the major cause of complaint. However, they are certainly a big point. I am most interested in what has been done in that respect. I shall study the proposal with more care to see whether it is enough.
I have one technical question for the Minister about the broad-brush changes he proposes to introduce for this year. Are those changes to be brought in by primary legislation or by regulation? If they are to be brought in by regulation, what are the vires under which they will be introduced? Further, if the Minister intends to do that, will he study the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on 1st February last about the use of transitional powers? Those remarks needed attention. I hope that they have received it.
The general changes in the formula, are, on the whole, good ones. I am glad about access and about debts. I hope that attention will be paid to the debts of joint businesses that have been run by previous couples. I am also glad about travel costs, but I have one vital technical question on which paragraph 65 of the Select Committee's report put me into some doubt. It concerns the people who, regrettably, have no public transport available to them and cannot travel to work except by car.
A great deal of the correspondence I have received has come from people who could not travel to work except by car. Some were buying a car on an HP loan but could not keep up the payments if they paid what they were assessed to pay under the formula. Will the broad-brush approach take account of the capital costs of owning a car? Alternatively, will it, as the Select Committee suggested, ignore the overall costs of car ownership? If it does so, there will still be many people who cannot afford to work while paying what they were assessed to pay under the legislation and it will not be true to say that no absent parent has a reasonable complaint regarding what they are assessed to pay under the formula.
I am extremely glad to see the proposals as regards second families; for example, the recognition of all the housing costs of the second family. Had that been done a year ago, couples who are now divorced would still be living together. I am glad about the provision for the exceptional costs of stepchildren. However, I should like to probe what is meant by the word "exceptional". In particular, I want to know whether account has been

877
taken of cases where the natural father of the stepchildren cannot support them because he is dead. That has caused much hardship in some cases.
I am pleased to see the cap on maintenance. Indeed, I doubly welcome it because I believe that I was the first person to propose it on 1st February last. What has been done has a considerable resemblance to what I proposed. Therefore, I am doubly grateful for it.
I am also grateful for the deferring of the start of maintenance assessment. I believe that that will help to avoid the enormous interim assessments which have arisen. I am glad about the concession on fees, but I wonder whether the Minister is perhaps slightly wriggling out of the situation when he puts the blame on the performance of the Child Support Agency. I am no fan of the agency, but I believe that account should be taken of the burden which was placed upon it. We should learn from the remarks made by the ombudsman. If such "misfortunes" are to be avoided, he said that,
"great care should be applied by public servants and those who instruct them whenever a policy decision is taken to devise a fresh administrative task which affects large numbers of the public".
The ombudsman also spoke about "maladministration",
"where quality of service is subordinated to sheer throughput".
I do not believe that the Government, even now, have any sense of the burden they have placed on the agency. When trying to deal with the agency, I hope they will take that factor into account.
Something must be done about appeals. I have proposed that appeals should be allowed in cases where either parent is left below benefit level; in cases where, under Section 2 of the Act, what is done is not in the best interests of the children; or in cases where the parent paying is unable to maintain the second family, including the stepchildren. Will the proposed changes bear any resemblance to my proposals?
The Government often say that no one is interested in constitutional reform. However, among the many hundreds of letters I have received regarding the Act, one constant theme is the fact that people cannot understand how Parliament allowed such legislation to come into existence. Only last week, I had to write to someone who complained that the Act was illegal. He said, "Although I understood what they were getting at, what they were saying could not literally be true". The feeling that the Executive is not being adequately scrutinised through the parliamentary process is painfully acute in such letters. They represent a large part of the public that is interested in constitutional reform.
If the department studies—as I am sure it has—the Hansard Society report drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, on the drafting of legislation, that would be a start. However, it should be taken into account that the parliamentary sovereignty that is praised so much appears to many of the public to be simply, as the White Paper on the subject was nicknamed, a case of "Treasury comes first". It can, in fact, appear to be a form of arbitrary power. However,
878
while we think about the changes in the Act, most of which I welcome, we should also consider the long-term constitutional implications.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for welcoming the Statement. I suppose it would have been too much to expect them to resist the old adage about glasshouses and throwing stones, and they threw a few. I suppose I could almost excuse myself as regards being in the glasshouse in that I was not in your Lordships' House when this particular Act was passed. However, I will not take refuge in that safety valve.
My colleagues in the Department of Social Security have looked long and hard at the workings of this Act. I do not think either of the two speakers spoke in any way against the principles of the Act this afternoon in that we are still all agreed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said —that it is right and proper that the parent in a particular case should make a contribution to his, or indeed her, children. However, it is more often a case of his children. That is something which does not divide us and we continue to want that. We want it done effectively. As I said, one of the problems with the working of the Act was that many absent parents were opposed to it and the money which ought to have flowed to the parent with care did not. I hope that what I have outlined today will mean that the money will begin to flow.
I am grateful for the welcome given by both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for the changes to the formula and for the principle of having an appeals system which will allow departures from the formula. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his kind words about my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt, who I know has spent many months deeply engrossed in this subject trying to see how we can improve the position.
I shall answer some of the particular points raised today. I was asked about the cases which will be deferred and about when they will be taken on. The proposal currently is that they should be deferred indefinitely in order to allow the new departure system to be introduced and to clear the agency's books. Quite frankly it would be pointless for me to commit myself to a date at some time in the future if the agency had not cleared its feet, so to speak, and was then overwhelmed by another bunch of cases coming in on top of the work it already had. I cannot remember who mentioned this point but I appreciate that that may not be the answer wished for and that that person would have preferred me to give a date. Dare I say that I think that is the sensible and pragmatic answer when dealing with that question?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked me about maintenance disregard. I believe the noble Earl also raised that point. Disregard in income support would, of course, make it more difficult for the parent with care to be better off in work than out of work because clearly she would have to earn more to lift herself and her children out of the benefit in those cases. It would also be very costly. While I appreciate that some Members of your Lordships' House do not seem to mind that, I

879
think there are others who know that that is a major determinant of all Government policy. Indeed, even Members of the Opposition in another place seem to think that making promises about spending more taxpayers' money is no longer in fashion. We hope that maintenance credit will provide a helpful sum of money when someone moves from being out of work to being in work. I thought one of the things we were agreed on was that there is a difficult bridge between being out of work and being in work. We hope that this particular maintenance credit will help a parent with care to cross that bridge.
On the same subject, the question then arises of parents with care being worse off when the maintenance floats them off benefit. In this regard maintenance is treated no differently to other forms of income which, of course, can also float the parent with care off benefit. But they can still qualify for help with such matters as National Health Service charges; for example, dental and prescription charges. Family credit rates, when they were originally set, included an amount to reflect the cost of school meals. Therefore, there is help in that regard.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked how the formula changes were to be brought in. I said that they would be brought in this coming April; that is, April 1995. The measures will be introduced by regulations, using the power in Schedule 1 of the Child Support Act to make regulations relating to exempt income. I shall certainly—as I always do—study the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on transitional powers, to which I was referred by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. However, I do not think there are any transitional powers involved in this regard.
The noble Earl asked an interesting question about the cost of going to and from work. This is a difficult matter. We are proposing a broad brush approach because it would be far too complicated to do otherwise. When the departures I have mentioned arise, some of the detail of this matter may then become an important point as regards the appeal for a departure. I cannot say whether that may or may not involve the cost of a motor car, but certainly I can envisage cases where that might be prayed in aid as a reason for the departure.
I hope I have answered most of the points raised. I have little doubt that when the legislation I have foreshadowed comes to your Lordships' House we will be able to look at it in greater detail. I am grateful for the welcome which both speakers gave to this Statement and I very much hope that we can proceed to make this agency run properly for the benefit of the absent parent, the parent with care, the children and the taxpayer.
4.16 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I hope I may ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. The first concerns the staff. Will the staff in the Child Support Agency be trained, as I think they have a heavy load? I would suggest that there are not enough staff and that this Bill cannot be properly implemented without good and adequate staff. Secondly, as regards parents with care, are we basing much of our work on the Australian
880
pattern or are we considering the European pattern? In France, for example, the parent with care is given the equivalent of a teacher's salary to stay at home and look after her very young children. Are we considering what is being done on the Continent—in as much as we are, so to speak, in Europe—or are we basing our work on the Australian pattern which I understand is not a great success?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we are well aware of the importance of the staff of the agency. Indeed, additional staff were taken on to deal with the problems which were arising. We are equally aware of the need for the staff of the agency to be well trained in the procedures to make sure that some of the hiccups that have occurred do not occur again. I can give my noble friend the assurance that we will be considering the numbers of staff and the important matter of their training. In the months leading up to this Statement my honourable and right honourable friends and their advisers have considered many of the systems of support around the world, including the Australian one.
I listened to what my noble friend said about paying the parent with care to stay at home and look after the child. However, I must tell my noble friend that while I understand that argument, it goes a good deal wider than just the parent with care in a divorce case and would also encompass all mothers who would prefer to stay at home and look after their children. I think my noble friend is perhaps opening a much wider question than we are addressing in this Statement.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when your Lordships were debating the Child Support Bill was it not clearly foreseen and prophesied that that piece of bureaucratic aggrandisement at the expense of the magistrature would cause exactly the sort of hardships, injustices and expenses which are now at last being recognised? In view of that, would it not be desirable to recognise that the previous system was superior; namely, trial by magistrates' courts close to the people concerned, using the judgment and discretion, which seem now to be claimed as a statutory innovation, in order to take account of all the multifariously different circumstances that arise in these cases?
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord about the expenses. When we discussed the Bill, large sums were paraded as being likely to inure to the Exchequer by way of savings. Will the noble Lord remind your Lordships' House what those were? How do they compare with any savings which are likely to inure under the system as modified, including the modifications by use of the transitory regulations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with some reluctance I must disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, about the previous system. It was not by any means a perfect system. The assessments were made very much at the discretion of a variety of courts. The result was uncertain and inconsistent and in many cases resulted in failure to deliver payments. Only one third of parents with care actually received maintenance regularly. The costs fell on the taxpayer. I explained a few moments

881
ago that I was not a Member of this House when the Bill was debated. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot remind the noble and learned Lord—although I suspect that he does not need to be reminded—how much it was claimed would be saved by the Child Support Agency.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, was it not set out in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is my point. I was not here at the time. Therefore, I shall have to refresh my memory when I leave the Dispatch Box. However, undoubtedly, considerable savings were prophesied for the taxpayer. I do not suppose that anyone complains about that saving. Everyone thinks that absent parents have a responsibility for their children and that they should not offload it on to the taxpayer.
Unfortunately, it is true that we have not made the savings that we would like to see. But we believe that as a result of the actions I have outlined today—which will cost us a little money—we shall make net savings. Most importantly, the parent with care will receive the maintenance from the absent parent which she deserves.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that the Act was passed without a dissenting voice. That may have been the case in the other place but, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, some of us—including my noble friend Lord Carter on the Front Bench—spent night after night, day after day, trying, into the early hours, to talk some sense into the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, played his part very well during those long watches of the night.
At that time we warned that the Act would be an administrative and financial disaster comparable with the poll tax. No notice was taken of us at all. No amendments were accepted or agreed by the Government. We were told that we did not know what we were talking about and that the Government wished to save £400 million. In spite of our protests that that was an undemocratic way to proceed, the Bill was passed by this House and another place with 100 Henry VIII clauses which allowed the Government to do just what they wished. That is what has happened.
If there is any criticism to be levelled it should not be directed at the Child Support Agency, which had a difficult job thrust upon it. The criticism should be directed where it is deserved—at the Government, for bringing forward such a Bill and forcing it through Parliament without proper and reasonable consideration even of proposals by people like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is an expert on the law and who foresaw the difficulties which would occur in relation to the Act.
Having delivered myself of those remarks, I should like to ask one or two questions. First, can the Minister say whether those cases which are not related to income support will be brought into the net from 1996 as the Act states? My noble friend shakes her head. I did not understand whether that was the case. Perhaps the noble Lord would confirm that. I was also not clear as to
882
whether the action to be taken in relation to clean-break settlements will be retrospective. Will the Minister clarify that point?
My final point relates to allowances for expenses incurred by non-custodial parents visiting their children. Will they be paid in full in respect of whichever means of transport is adopted? In answering that question I hope that the Minister will bear in mind that in France there is only a 16 per cent. loss of contact between children and non-custodial parents in divorce cases compared with a 50 per cent. loss of contact in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reassure me that the full costs of non-custodial parents visiting their children will be allowed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am glad that my Statement has allowed the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to get so much off his chest in one afternoon. That is probably a good thing for your Lordships' House in relation to other questions which may arise as the week progresses.
In relation to the noble Lord's question about non-benefit cases, as I made clear, we shall take powers in the legislation to defer the taking on of those non-benefit cases.
On the question of the departures—as these would be, since this is not a change in the formula—which would be allowed if the expenses incurred by parents visiting their children were excessive, that would be a matter for the appeals procedure to determine. I do not believe that all the expenses would be allowed, because at least some of the normal expenses would be part and parcel of the absent parent's use of his normal income, less any maintenance he has to pay.
The broad-brush provision for property and capital assessments will deal with property and capital transfers made before 1993.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I also welcome the Statement. It appears to deal with most of the difficulties which have arisen in practice since the agency came into being. Can my noble friend give an assurance that the agency will not interfere with agreements which have been freely reached on divorce and are properly documented regarding property and the maintenance of children?
Can my noble friend also give an assurance that nothing in the Statement in any way undermines the fundamental principle that wherever possible parents should be responsible for their children and should not pass the buck to the taxpayer?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. To answer his question, as I mentioned, the take-up of those cases which were not on the benefit system before 1993 will be deferred in the legislation to come, although at some stage in the future, when the agency has caught up with the new departures and with its workload, it will consider taking them on board.
I have explained how the property settlements and capital settlements will be accounted for. In cases where the benefit system is involved—and I understand that

883
the same applies under the court system—there is no such thing as a clean break between a parent and his child. There may have been a clean break between the spouses, but there cannot be a clean break between the parent who has left and the child. With regard to those cases which will be dealt with in the courts, there was no such thing, and there cannot be, in the Child Support Agency's work. As I believe my noble friend mentioned at the end of his question, it remains the major item of principle in the whole business, agreed by almost all noble Lords, that the absent parent has a financial responsibility to his children which he cannot and should not shrug off.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, as a so-called absent parent, I wonder whether I may make two observations. First, I wish to object most strongly and strenuously against the use of the offensive and misleading phrase "absent parent". I know that it is the phrase used throughout the Act, but I wonder whether the Minister could set a good example by using some other phrase such as, for instance, "a non-resident parent". My son spends about a hundred days a year with me. During those hundred days his mother is the absent parent and I am the parent with care. The phrase is much resented by fathers—and they almost always are fathers—all over the country.
Secondly, it is most unfair that boarding school fees paid by a father are not taken into account in calculating the sum payable to the mother. The father has to pay the same amount whether the son is at a fee paying boarding school—Eton, or wherever it may be—or is a day boy at a state school. I do not see how that can be justified. I wonder whether that point can also be considered.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course I shall take away the last point and consider it. I understand the noble Lord's point about the names used. Many children will have two parents who consider themselves to be "with care". I accept that in the kind of case to which he refers, where one parent may look after the child for 100 days and another for 265 days, or 266 if it is a leap year, it is a little unfair to make the assumption, which is built into the phrase "parent with care", that the absent parent (if I may use that phrase) does not have care. Perhaps we may apologise to the noble Lord and say that it becomes complex to seek labels which will encompass every situation. I am afraid that we are stuck with the two that we have.
I shall certainly consider the question about school fees. I do not suppose that it affects very many people. However, I understand that those who are affected find it a serious point.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, can the noble Lord consider the phrase "resident" and "non-resident"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course. But, frankly, we are a little too far down the road to start changing some of the fundamental definitions in the Act.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Guidance to be issued by the Minister
The Minister shall, after consultation with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and such bodies as appear to him to represent the interests of landlords and tenants of farm business tenancies, issue guidance setting out the matters which in his view need to be considered by the parties to any farm business tenancy before entering into any such tenancy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36, which is consequential.
When we debated the issue on guidance at Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Gallacher and I had put forward more prescriptive amendments than the present amendment. We suggested that the Government should be required to lay down regulations to deal with matters which should be covered in a tenancy agreement. As I said on the previous amendment, I am always ready to be persuaded by the Minister's eloquence. Therefore, we have now come back with what we believe is a more acceptable amendment. It is not so prescriptive, does not require the issue of regulations, but rests on the central point about which we feel strongly: that it is the Government's job to issue guidance and that that job should not be left to outside bodies, however worthy those bodies are.
I am sure that the Minister will quote the Tenancy Reform Industry Group (TRIG). But however much I admire the work of the group—I know its members well—I still believe that it is the job of Government to issue guidance as set out in the amendment. We know that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is working hard. It has kindly let me have a list of the headings that it is considering. It is a full list. That body has divided itself into working parties. Obviously they are doing a good job. They are drafting their own guidance notes. I understand that in the spring that body intends to go out to consultation more widely with other interested bodies in the industry. It is hoping that by the summer most of the work will have been done. There seems no reason why the Government should not allow that work to continue and, when completed, to consider the guidance notes and issue them with the Government's own gloss. They could have the imprimatur of being guidance notes issued by the Government and not by an outside body. The examples which the RICS gives cover all the areas that one would wish to see considered. It is a full list.
I emphasise that we do not suggest, as we suggested at Committee, that the Government should be required to lay down regulations. The guidance will not have the force of law. We have not even suggested that it should be a code of practice which would be stronger than guidance notes.
Perhaps I may paraphrase briefly what I stated in Committee. The Government's argument appears to be, "Just leave it to the landlord and tenant". If the matter is left to the landlord and tenant in this new,

885
free-wheeling era which will surround the new system, we shall end up by not doing that but leaving it to the courts. It is worth repeating what I said at Committee: that a number of lawyers who specialise in this area of the law have said that they are licking their lips in anticipation of the kinds of cases that they expect to bring forward.
If the Act is successful in producing a large number of farm business tenancies, by the regularisation of the existing share farming, the contract or the Gladstone v. Bower arrangements, or it attracts new tenanted land which is now in the owner-occupied sector, then the Act will govern a large area of our rural land mass. I do not believe that the Government should be able to wash their hands of responsibility in that area. Therefore they should take on board the job of issuing guidance notes for those who will be drawing up the new tenancy agreements. They should at least take responsibility for providing suitable guidance; I do not refer to regulation. However, within that guidance there will still be the considerable freedom of manoeuvre for landlord and tenant which the Government wish to see. The guidance will not have the force of law. It will be there to help the prospective parties to the contracts.
It is obvious that the department, in particular MAFF, issues guide notes and codes of practice on many subjects. At Question Time we often hear guidance notes on sheep dipping cited. On reading the newsletter of the Dairy Industry Federation I learnt today that the Government are issuing guidance notes on foot and mouth disease. I believe that there is a code of practice on pollution. The Government are not averse to issuing guidance notes or a code of practice to deal with specific areas of agricultural policy.
I emphasise that we suggest guidance and not a code of practice. Such guidance does not have the force of law. We suggest the kind of guidance which the Government are prepared to issue on a range of subjects in the industry. The Government seem to have washed their hands entirely of providing guidance as to what should go into the new tenancy agreements.
The Minister is very fond of quoting (and I do not blame him) the industry group. Perhaps he can reflect on the remarks of the chairman of the TFA in January 1994 when, referring to the Bill that was likely to come forward, he said:
"I'm sure that in spite of all the safeguards we build in it Will still be possible for sharp agents, owners and even … tenants to write 'funnies' into the agreement which will do nothing but bring the system into disrepute and I do urge everyone to avoid that route".
The way to avoid that route is for the Government to issue some decent notes of guidance so that we all know what sort of things should be in the new agreements. To summarise the argument, we believe that it is the Government's responsibility; it should not be left to outside bodies. The Government should be prepared to take that responsibility. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment, and I have also tabled a milder amendment. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to address them both at the same time.
886
The reason why I support this amendment and why I tabled Amendment No. 5 is this. Listening to the comments of noble Lords in Committee, reading the agricultural press and farming, as I do, in Wales and Oxford, I have been forced to the conclusion that, although the industry group and noble Lords may understand the radical nature of this Bill, it is blatantly obvious that the farmer on the ground just does not appreciate what a change in approach to the tenanting of agricultural land the Bill will cause.
As I have probably told the House I have farmed as a tenant for a little over 40 years. During that time I have enjoyed virtually total security. The tenant could—and I suppose on many occasions I did—tell his landlord to get lost with no fear of reprisal, except of course bad will. But that, for better or worse, will go with freedom of contract. Noble Lords should not for a moment forget that with such freedom comes responsibility. There is a great danger of it causing some very unpleasant situations, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, also suggested. For instance, let us take as an example the tenant who could well have a wife and children and who might be 40 years old. He could well be evicted from his house—which, incidentally, would not be possible if he were an agricultural worker because he would be protected. This point was forcefully made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
The best way to avoid such problems is, as is suggested in the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to make absolutely sure that prospective landlords and tenants understand the matters that should be discussed and decided before entering into a lease.
I would have liked to see a non-statutory model clause. However, when I mentioned that to the industry group it rebuked me in a manner that I can only describe as being like Sir Humphrey rebuking his Minister. Being, as always, fearful of annoying the agricultural lobby, I have managed to tone down my amendment, which only requires the Minister to keep a watching brief on future agreements and obliges him to make sure that both landlord and tenant are getting the best possible advice before entering into an agreement —or perhaps I should say "any old agreement", because that is what I fear could happen.
I realise that neither of these amendments is blessed by the industry group. I fear therefore that my noble friend Lord Howe will tell me that it is dangerous to interfere with such a delicate plant for its flower might wither away if upset in any way whatsoever. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I think I know the members of the industry group well enough to know that they can—indeed they should—take a little criticism from time to time.
While I am about it, I might as well criticise my noble friend, too. If he replies by using the words "anodyne" or "otiose" in regard to my amendment—words that are much loved by civil servants—it will show that his department (not, of course, my noble friend) fails to appreciate the importance of good guidance to avoid future problems destroying the Bill. If my noble friend replies in such a vein, I really will have no alternative,

887
much as I should regret it, but to take his advice and support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rather than move mine.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I support the Bill, which has been long awaited by the industry. But after saying that, I believe that there is a great deal of merit in the amendment that was so ably tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and supported by my friend from Anglesey, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley.
As the years go by—and many of us have been involved in agriculture all our lives—I feel now that I need more guidance than ever before, and especially in regard to the new rules and regulations that come in from Europe. On balance, we need a great deal more guidance if the industry is to succeed in Europe. This is a glorious opportunity for the Government to help those farmers who will be involved in getting a new tenancy.
Looking at the Bill, I believe that the landlord would be far more likely to choose an established tenant with security behind him than prospective young farmers without milk or sheep quotas. I believe that that is what will happen. But I shall not speak against that. What is important is that those young farmers will have guidance and help without all the time having to go to their solicitors. Finally, of course, they will have to use a solicitor, but they need guidance in the few weeks before they do that.
I have just one final question. I asked the Minister this at Second Reading. I wonder what are his views and whether he has considered what was said then about county council smallholdings. I honestly believe that the young farmers of tomorrow will be very keen to have a county council smallholding if they are not successful under this Bill. Guidance could given on county council smallholdings by the Government. I know that they are provided by the local authority and perhaps people will say that we should not get involved in any way, but if the Government would give guidance to county councils to try to persuade them to buy more farms for the young farmers of this country, it would be a step in the right direction. I support the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords who have proposed this amendment. We need it badly. Let us hope that the Minister will accede to our request.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and indeed to my noble friend for explaining the purpose of their respective amendments. Flattered as I am by the implication that my department is the fount of all wisdom on tenancy matters, I have to say that I believe that others are better qualified to prepare guidance for people preparing a tenancy agreement. My officials, I am told, hardly ever even see a tenancy agreement in the course of their everyday duties.
The RICS has established a working party which has been working assiduously on drafting guidance notes. The members of that group are, I believe, well qualified for the task by virtue of their expertise and experience. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, thinks that
888
they are doing a good job. The RICS held a seminar last Thursday at which it explained in general terms what it was doing, and this was welcomed.
However, the important thing to realise—and I say this particularly to my noble friend—is that the RICS will not be taking all the responsibility upon itself. It has said that it hopes to have completed its first drafts on each of the various topics by the end of this month. It will then seek comments from the main industry bodies and, I trust, from MAFF as well. The next stage will be to prepare a fuller revised version with a target date of the end of March. That version will be the subject of wider consultation, in the light of which it will finalise the guidance. It should then be in a position to send the text for publication as soon as the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament and to issue it well in advance of 1st September, which is when we hope that the Bill will come into force.
I readily acknowledge that the guidance will be an important source of advice. It is important that it should be full, accurate and unbiased. My department is certainly prepared to contribute to that objective. However, it seems much better that industry experts should take the lead in designing a package with which they and their clients or members can work easily. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that approach, if it does not meet the letter of his amendment, certainly meets the spirit of it. I would not dream of criticising his amendment in the terms that he foresaw that I might do.
A further point that I should make is that this will not be —nor would we wish it to be—the only source of advice. Farm business tenancies will provide greater freedom and flexibility. Industry organisations may want to offer services to help their members draw up agreements for their own circumstances. Other people may rely on their regular land agent or solicitor. Others may turn to textbooks, which no doubt are being written as we speak.
With regard to the query of the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about county council smallholdings, as I explained in Committee, essentially the decisions that are made by county councils are for them to make as to whether to buy more smallholdings. But the Bill will be helpful to the extent that providing more opportunities for tenants to move up the ladder will leave more openings for new entrants. At present the smallholdings tend to become blocked because the tenants do not move up the ladder.
This is not an area in which the Government should monopolise the field and prescribe the terms which are best for individuals in widely varying circumstances to include in what are essentially private contracts. We are prepared to play our full part in facilitating the production of guidance if the authors would like the benefit of our advice. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we have no wish to take on a statutory responsibility for producing guidance ourselves.
I do not understand why the noble Lord believes that the absence of government guidance—rather than, as is now envisaged, guidance prepared by those best placed to produce it—will result in landlords and tenants engaging in an uncontrolled and ill advised free-for-all. I simply do not see that point.

889
The noble Lord has that look about him which suggests that he is contemplating dividing the House. I hope that he does not divide it. I hope that he will accept that there is good work going on, led by professionals, in which my ministry will be pleased to take a role and which makes official government guidance unnecessary, even if he cannot agree with me that it is inherently undesirable in the context of this Bill.
Therefore, I hope very much that my noble friend and the noble Lord will not press their amendments but instead be content to let current events run their course and await publication of the draft RICS guidance at the end of this month.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am not sure how one is supposed to look when thinking about dividing the House. I was struck by the modesty shown by the Minister about his department. He agreed that it was not the fount of all wisdom. We all agree with that. But he also said that his officials hardly ever see a tenancy agreement. They issued some guidance notes on sheep dipping, and how many times have they dipped sheep? They take advice from the veterinary service, do they not?
Earl Howe: My Lord, that concerns the Health and Safety Executive, which does know a thing or two about sheep dipping.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the same thing applies: as a department it takes advice. In this case obviously it would take both outside advice and advice from within the department from the land service. So that argument does not run. The noble Earl made an extraordinary statement. I had perhaps a naive view that the officials of government departments are or should be trained to consider matters objectively and advise industry. That is what we are asking the department to do. I feel that this is an abdication of responsibility.
The trouble is that the whole business was started by a former Minister—John Gummer, of blessed memory—who was in full-scale free market mode when this issue was introduced. It takes a long time for a Bill to be drafted and come forward. We are left with it now. We still have the hangover of the complete freedom of contract and an attitude of "leave it all to the market; leave it all to the landlord and tenant and they will sort it out". In fact we have already accepted that. We have not tried to break the fundamental principle of the Bill. We are trying to improve the Bill.
There have been some meetings around the country but it surprises me just how little is known about the Bill and its implications. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, nods his head. It is the job of the Government to make sure that the industry is aware of what it is taking on. We are going into a whole new scene. Perhaps the Minister will remember that at Second Reading he said that we were going back to the middle of the 19th century. If so, we need some guidance in what to do in that completely different situation.
He referred to the services that will be offered by various institutes and organisations. But those services will be offered anyway. We want a wide range of advice but set within a framework. Because of the importance
890
of the Bill, its effect on our countryside and all that will be happening there, and the fact that a farm is not just a means of earning a living but also a home—for all those reasons I believe that the Government should be prepared to take on board the responsibility. As I said, it will not have the force of law. We do not ask them to lay regulations or even issue a code of practice. We ask them to take all the advice that is available, put it together, put their own gloss on it and issue it as a guidance which everyone can then see is the essential advice that we all need.
I am afraid that the Minister was not correct. I had not thought of dividing the House until he answered the amendment. I believe that now I should ask the opinion of the House.
4.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 129.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Kilbracken, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Leigh, L.

Barnett, L.

Listowel, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carter, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Courtown, E.

Meston, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Parry, L.

Ezra, L.

Peston, L.

Falkender, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Russell, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Seear, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gregson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Varley, L.

Howell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wise, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

891

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Ailsa, M.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Aldington, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Knollys, V.

Arran, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Layton, L.

Astor, V.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, E.

Liverpool, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Manton, L.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Butterworth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Moyne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Munster, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Newall, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Coleraine, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Orkney, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Palmer, L.

Cranworth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Davidson, V.

Pym, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Quinton, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rodney, L.

Finsberg, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Savile, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Slim, V.

Gisborough, L.

Somerset, D.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hacking, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harlech, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Wakeham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 not to apply in relation to new tenancies except in special cases]:
5.5 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderleymoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 20, after ("granted") insert ("on an agreed succession").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendment No. 9. I moved identical amendments in Committee, discussed at cols. 1146 to 1150. At that time we all agreed that succession rights should be protected under the 1986 Act rather than by a direction from the agricultural land tribunal. We also agreed that it was better to draw a line under the 1986 Act tenancies and that any new tenancies would be under the 1995 farm business tenancy. There was a difference of opinion as to whether the wording of the Bill achieved that aim and my noble friend Lord Howe said that he would look again at the matter. Having looked at it again I believe that my noble friend will agree that these amendments are necessary to achieve our common objective. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendments because they deal with an important point. The intention of the legislation is that all new lettings after 1st September should be under the new legislation but that all existing tenancies and rights of succession should continue. I believe that that is the Government's intention. The present wording protects those successions approved by the agricultural land tribunal.
If we understand the Bill correctly, it allows new 1986 Act tenancies to be created, but only if they are fresh succession tenancies. The point is raised by practitioners —I mentioned it in Committee, and I do not believe it was properly answered—as to whether the intention is that no existing tenant with full security should inadvertently lose that security. It is also asked whether accumulated succession rights will be preserved.
The Bill does not achieve that end. It addresses only a situation where, inadvertently, by operation of law, an existing tenant surrenders his tenancy on a regrant. There are numerous examples where existing tenants, agreeing in co-operation with the landlord to a new tenancy on modern up-to-date terms, may inadvertently find themselves thereafter without security. It is a technical point on the drafting that was raised in Committee. We feel that there is not the security that there should be on succession. It would be helpful if the Minister could reassure us.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agreed in Committee to give further thought to my noble friend's amendment. Although we do not think there is anything technically wrong with the clause as drafted, the fuller wording of the amendment would make clearer the circumstances in which succession tenancies can—and indeed cannot—be granted. I am sure therefore that my noble friend will be pleased to hear that since the amendment achieves the right result and is supported by the industry, I am happy to accept it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer.

893
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cartermoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:
("() is granted by a written contract of tenancy indicating (in whatever terms) that the 1986 Act is to apply in relation to the tenancy; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 was discussed in Committee. The Government's argument is that if anyone wants the terms of the 1986 Act, they simply write them into the new farm business tenancy. However, we were advised—again I am talking of those involved with smallholdings—by the county land agent of the Norfolk County Council that,
"I should like the flexibility to be able to continue to relet statutory smallholdings [and] 'County Farms equipped holdings' under the 1986 Act and an amendment to this effect would be very helpful".—[Official Report, 12/12/94; col. 1151.]
The point, which I shall not repeat at length but which was made in Committee, is that if it is logical to allow tenants to contract into a new succession tenancy—it may be unlikely but it is possible—then they should be allowed to contract into a new life or retirement tenancy. We know that smallholdings were deliberately excluded from the 1986 Act. However, if there is a group of people who would like to opt into the 1986 Act we think it would be helpful if they could do that. They could save time because they would not have to go through all the paraphernalia of the farm business tenancy and having to write into the new tenancy all the clauses of the 1986 Act. The point would not affect an enormous number of people but we feel that there should be a means by which the parties could contract into a new life or retirement tenancy if they wished to do so. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I find it surprising that the noble Lord thinks that people will want to opt into the 1986 Act when there is at the moment such a marked reluctance to let land on lifetime tenancies. Nor do I see any reason to leave this option open. If a tenant wants a lifetime tenancy and the landlord is willing to grant him one there is nothing to prevent them from drafting an appropriate farm business tenancy to provide that security. That is what Norfolk County Council could do if it wished. In the same way the parties can agree, if they wish, to write into their farm business tenancies many of the provisions that are in the 1986 Act. One thing they will not be able to do is to agree to write down the compensation for tenants' improvements. The mandatory provisions in the Bill will apply.
I am somewhat puzzled as to why the noble Lord should advocate an amendment which could deprive a tenant of the very same compensation rights which, as I recall, he praised at Second Reading as being superior to those of the 1986 Act. The main industry organisations have agreed that once the new legislation is in force it should apply to all new lettings other than those arising under the statutory succession provisions. This amendment, which leaves the 1986 Act option open, would give rise to confusion and would not be in the interests of the industry as a whole. We believe that the new legislation will provide all the flexibility the
894
industry needs, including the option to agree lifetime tenancies. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I did say that I thought that this would be used only comparatively rarely and by a comparatively small group of landlords and tenants. We have been pressed by those in the smallholdings area who say that this would be useful to them. It seems that we cannot persuade the Government. I do not propose to come back to this matter again. We have tried twice and it seems that we cannot convince the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cartermoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 27, leave out from ("tenancy")") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important point which was touched on earlier during the discussion of Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I am not quite sure whether the point will be picked up in the Government's acceptance of the noble Lord's amendments. It is a technical point. The preservation of security for an existing tenant on an expressed surrender and regrant is as important as where there is a surrender and regrant by the inadvertent operation of law. If the intention of the legislators is that all tenants with existing protected tenancies should not inadvertently lose that security after the passing of the 1995 Act, the wording which we propose is necessary.
I am advised by practitioners that there are instances of landlords and tenants agreeing to relocation within an estate. But because of the way the Bill is drafted, and the 1986 Act particularly, tenants would effectively be unable to move even though it is in the landlord's interests that they should because the tenant would not be able to get the same security as before. I am advised that the statement in Committee by the Minister about being able to achieve that by a long-term fixed term lease shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of estates and the distinction between a protected annual tenancy and fixed term lease.
It is a technical point. It is one of those areas of the 1986 Act and the carryover into the 1995 legislation which needs to be looked at because what the Government intend will not be achieved. It will not give the flexibility that it should give in the operation of the Act. When we discussed the matter in Committee the Minister said that he would consider it and see whether there was anything in the technical point which had been raised. I have been advised by a leading practitioner in the field that that is the case. It would be helpful if the Government could say either that they take the point or that they are prepared to take the matter away and consider it. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have indeed considered this matter since we debated it at an earlier stage. However, I have come to the conclusion that the amendment would have a drastic effect which we do not believe would be acceptable. As drafted, the clause provides protection for people who have an existing tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 against losing

895
their rights under that Act—for example, their security of tenure—simply because a variation in their tenancy agreement has effect by operation of law as an implied surrender followed by the grant of a new tenancy. We accept that in those circumstances it would be inequitable for the new tenancy to be excluded from the scope of the 1986 Act when the parties had not intended that to happen.
However, the amendment would mean that the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 would apply to any tenancy granted to a person who had previously held a tenancy under the 1986 Act on that land. That would be the case even if the parties had expressly signed a new tenancy agreement. Since that could hardly happen accidentally it seems quite unreasonable to provide for such new tenancies to be subject to the 1986 Act. In addition, the effect would be that where a short-term letting under a ministry licence or under a Gladstone v. Bower tenancy had come to an end and the parties wished to enter a farm business tenancy the amendment would mean that the 1986 Act would apply to the new tenancy. That, too, would be clearly unsatisfactory.
We are satisfied that the clause as drafted provides adequate protection for tenants against an unwitting loss of their rights under the 1986 Act. We would not wish to go any further than that. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord but, in the circumstances, I hope that he will feel able, albeit reluctantly, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I shall have to read what he said and consult others who will also read it with great care. The point was put to me quite strongly by a leading practitioner. It seems that there is a difference of opinion which I am sure the Government wish to see resolved. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderleymoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 32, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (c) above, a tenancy ("the current tenancy") is granted on an agreed succession if, and only if—

(a) the previous tenancy of the holding or a related holding was a tenancy in relation to which Part IV of the 1986 Act applied, and

(b) the current tenancy is granted otherwise than as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above but in such circumstances that if—

(i) Part IV of the 1986 Act applied in relation to the current tenancy, and

(ii) a sole (or sole surviving) tenant under the current tenancy were to die and be survived by a close relative of his,

the occasion on which the current tenancy is granted would for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 37 of the 1986 Act be taken to be an occasion falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
(3) In this section—
896

(a) "agricultural holding" and "contract of tenancy" have the same meaning as in the 1986 Act, and

(b) "close relative" and "related holding" have the meaning given by section 35(2) of that Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Tenancies for more than two years to continue from year to year unless terminated by notice]:
Lord Stanley of Alderleymoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 1, at end insert ("except for the provisions contained in subsection (5) below.
(5) A tenant of a farm business tenancy for a term of two years or more may terminate the tenancy in any year before the due determination date by giving notice of not less than 12 months and not more than 24 months in the following circumstances only—

(a) where following the death of the named tenant the tenancy becomes vested in his personal representatives, or

(b) where the tenant has become permanently incapacitated by age or infirmity.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if my noble friend had accepted the amendment to Clause 1 of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, there would be no need for this amendment, which resolves the problem of what happens if the tenant becomes incapacitated and still has a number of years of his farm business tenancy to run. Under previous agricultural 'enancies the tenant could always give 12 months' notice to quit. That is not so with the farm business tenancy. I suspect that my noble friend will say that any reasonable landlord would allow the tenant to give notice. But there are unreasonable landlords, just as there are unreasonable tenants. The amendment would allow the tenant to give his landlord notice to quit if he became incapacitated. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, once again my noble friend has demonstrated his comprehensive knowledge of agricultural holdings matters. I am most grateful to him for that explanation.
If parties wish to have access to break clauses in the unhappy circumstances dealt with by this amendment, they need to provide for such clauses in their own tenancy agreement. Of course I recognise that sometimes they might omit to do so. What then? I can see that if, for example, parties agreed a fixed term for three years and the tenant became very seriously ill six months after taking up the tenancy it would be a difficult situation. Rather than enabling notice to be given in the narrow circumstances dealt with by this amendment, the obvious alternative would be a negotiated surrender, which of course would have the added advantage of being achievable in a much shorter time than the minimum period of 12 months that would flow from giving notice under my noble friend's amendment. It will generally be obvious that it would do little good in such circumstances for the landlord to refuse the surrender and for the tenant to remain locked into the agreement.
I should, however, like to say in addition to my noble friend that I understand that this amendment is not supported by those in the industry group. Its view apparently is that the terms of the tenancy should apply,

897
together with whatever break clauses the parties have agreed. With that explanation I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I do not believe that I have any alternative but to withdraw the amendment. I have been threatened with the industry group again, to which one is not allowed to say "Boo" or anything else otherwise they bully me outside and behave like Sir Humphrey. Obviously they behave in exactly the same way to my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I am not entirely happy because one may be unable to negotiate with a very difficult landlord. I know that this is an exceptional case. The matter would be dealt with if we had agreed to the amendment to Clause 1. This would have been one of the points to be considered very carefully. I fear that there will be occasions when this matter is not considered and there will be trouble. I shall have to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Length of notice to quit]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 8, at end insert:
("() Where, by virtue of section 5(1) of this Act, a farm business tenancy for a term of more than two years is to continue (as from the term date) as a tenancy from year to year, a notice to quit which complies with subsection (1) above and which is to take effect on the first anniversary of the term date shall not be invalid merely because it is given before the term date; and in this subsection "the term date" has the meaning given by section 5(2) of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the need for this amendment arises because of a minor technical difficulty over the interrelationship between Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill. The amendment enables either party to end a fixed term tenancy of more than two years' duration on the first anniversary after expiry of the agreed fixed term. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that, unless a minimum of 12 months' notice has been given that the tenancy is to end on the agreed term date, a farm business tenancy for a term of more than two years shall continue, as from that date, as a tenancy from year to year. Clause 6 provides that at least 12 months' notice must be given before the date on which a tenancy from year to year is to end.
I am advised that where a fixed term tenancy becomes a tenancy from year to year because no notice has been given in accordance with Clause 5(1), the tenancy remains the same throughout. However, Clause 6 as currently drafted could give rise to doubt as to whether a notice to quit could be served in the final year of the fixed term; that is before the fixed term tenancy has become a tenancy from year to year. The amendment makes it clear that a notice to quit may be given during the final year of the fixed term in order to end the tenancy on the first anniversary of the term date. The notice must, of course, comply with the other provisions of Clause 6.
Without this amendment parties who had a 10-year tenancy and who failed to serve notice in year nine would be locked in to their tenancy until the end of year 12: they would be unable to end it at the end of year 11. We need to regularise the position so that either party
898
can end the tenancy at the first anniversary of the term date, just as at any subsequent anniversary. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining this technical amendment. Can he confirm to the House that he had the permission of the industry group to table it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I certainly have not heard any murmurs of discontent from the industry group, to whom we always defer for guidance. I hope that the noble Lord will feel it desirable to make this amendment to the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Application of doctrine of privity of contract
(". The doctrine of privity of contract (whether enacted under statute or contained in the common law) shall not apply to any farm business tenancy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill we dealt in some detail with the doctrine of privity of contract. I return to it this evening, but I hasten to reassure the Minister that it is not my intention to give the exposition of what it means with which I bored the Committee to tears, I regret to say. Tonight, however, I wish to take advantage of the fact that circumstances have changed significantly since we discussed this matter in Committee. It is that change of circumstances which has occasioned the amendment which, I hope, will cause the noble Earl himself to look afresh at this question.
The change of circumstances comes about because it had been my understanding, which was not challenged in Committee, that while there was general agreement on the need for reform of the doctrine of privity of contract, there was not very much agreement between property owners, on the one hand, and people who were caught in privity of contract clauses, for example retailers, on the other.
As I understand it, the legal position was and is that the Government are in support of a Law Commission recommendation that the law be reformed in this regard. I believe that a Bill to do that was drafted by the Law Commission as part of its report on the subject. I now understand from the British Retail Consortium that it has reached agreement with the British Property Federation on the reform of privity of contract in commercial leases. The Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, Mr. John Taylor, has invited the British Retail Consortium and British Property Federation representatives to meet with him. I believe that that meeting was scheduled to take place in December. As I say, the hope is that, arising from the meeting, a number of measures proposed by the British Retail Consortium to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in 1992 will be agreed.
I shall not read in their entirety the submissions by the British Retail Consortium, but one of considerable importance is a modification of Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927:

899
"to enable parties to agree detailed terms when granting a lease concerning future assignments".
I believe that we have established that farm business contracts will be subject to the doctrine of privity of contract as the law now stands. If that is not so, I shall be relieved to hear that from the Minister. However, on the assumption that they are subject to the doctrine of privity of contract, the object of the amendment is to give exemption from the doctrine in respect of any farm business tenancy as worded in Amendment No. 12. I believe that that would be of only limited duration.
I have read enough to the House about the negotiations which are taking place between those affected by privity of contract and the Lord Chancellor's Department for your Lordships to be reasonably satisfied that there is now not merely the will but the expectation of a change of law in this regard. If the noble Earl is disposed to accept the amendment, I shall not expect the exemption which it seeks to run for long because it will be overtaken by legislation which will be enacted if not in this Session then in the next Session of Parliament.
As the provisions of the Bill do not take effect until 1st September, it will, as I say, be a fairly limited exemption. But it is desirable that those who may be contemplating farm business tenancies should be aware of the legal situation. Therefore, even if the Minister is unable to accept my amendment, I hope that he will, on the one hand, have encouraging things to say about the future and, on the other, warn those who may be disposed to enter into farm business tenancies that under the Act the privity of contract doctrine in the Bill we are now considering will apply to them. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I explained in Committee, the Government intend to introduce reforms in relation to privity of contract and estate, but we should like such reforms to cover all types of tenancies, not just agricultural tenancies. Therefore, although we are sympathetic towards the motives behind the amendment I still do not think that it is appropriate to try to tackle this very technical subject in this Bill which deals with only one type of tenancy. In addition, as I am sure the noble Lord realises, the solution will not, unfortunately, be anything like as simple as the amendment might suggest.
As noble Lords know, a Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place in the last Session but was blocked on Second Reading. However, there have been developments since then and I am grateful to the noble Lord for acquainting the House with the agreement which I understand has been reached between the British Retail Consortium and the British Property Federation on a package of proposals on privity of contract and related issues. That is very encouraging. However, their proposals represent a radical change of policy and the Government consider it right that the entire range of interests in the industry should be consulted before a decision is taken. Should a consensus emerge that would, of course, carry considerable weight.
900
Turning to the noble Lord's amendment, I have to say that it would not be adequate as it stands: for example, privity of contract would have to be defined, which is not as easy as one might suppose. Furthermore, it does not reflect the policy proposed by the Law Commission and accepted by the Government; namely, that the parties to a lease should in general cease to have any rights or liabilities under the lease once they have parted with their respective interests, except where it is objectively reasonable for some degree of liability to continue. In particular, the Law Commission recommended that it should be possible for a condition of assignment to be that the tenant should guarantee performance of the covenants in the lease by his assignee. I understand that the BRC/BPF package does not materially alter this, but the amendment does not address that issue.
What I can say, therefore, is that the Government are keen to see a solution to this problem and that real progress is being made in that direction. What I cannot do, I am afraid, is to accept this amendment which, in any case, I am advised would not achieve the desired result and would in all probability result in landlords prohibiting assignment.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am disappointed by that reply although it was not unexpected. I plead guilty to the simplicity of the drafting, which accords squarely with the character of the person responsible for the draft—myself. I am disappointed. Despite the complexity of the question, as outlined by the noble Earl, I think that the Bill as drafted will add to that complexity because farm business tenancies will presumably have to be considered in the light of the negotiations that are taking place between the Lord Chancellor's Department, property interests and user interests. I hope that the industry group, about which we have heard so much this afternoon in relation to other amendments, is conscious of the fact that it should be fully conversant with the dangers that might lie ahead and about which, even at this early stage, it should perhaps take some action to protect its members. We should certainly like them to be protected.
Having said that, as I said at the outset I am not in the least surprised, although I am disturbed, by the position that has arisen. However, given the Minister's unwillingness to give any assurances other than to say that the talks are moving forward, I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Application of Part II]:
Lord Gallachermoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 24, after ("formula") insert ("which does not preclude a reduction and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 13, with which is grouped Amendment No. 14, relates to the formula for adjusting rent. I believe that the House has a choice as to which of the two amendments, which have the same objective, it wishes to support. Again, we

901
raised this matter in Committee. I am advised that the Tenant Farmers' Association supports the amendment, as does the National Farmers Union.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the creation of a loophole allowing the introduction of a form of upward-only rent review. The rent review formula in Clause 13 enables an arbitrator to revise the rent according to the circumstances, which may mean an increase or a reduction. We do not want that to be circumvented by the use of the formula for adjusting rent. I am advised that agriculture has not been used to upward-only clauses, which are seen to have been damaging to businesses in the commercial property sector, as can be seen many times over on any walk down any high street these days.
Agriculture is a sector that is widely exposed to government decisions (whether on interest rates or the common agricultural policy) and it should therefore have freedom to adjust to circumstances. The industry organisations that have written to us on this matter believe that our amendment may be slightly better phrased, not involving a double negative, but I am not here to offer a lesson in English grammar to one as distinguished as the noble Earl. Nevertheless, he will no doubt tell me yet again in what respects my Amendment No. 13 is the poorer amendment. I move my amendment in anticipation of listening with rapt attention to what the noble Earl will say in favour of his amendment, Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this is an area in which, as I indicated in Committee, we are willing to give effect to the industry's wishes. The noble Lord will have seen my amendment to Clause 9, Amendment No. 14, Although the wording differs from Amendment No. 13, we accept that the effect is exactly the same. In view of that, the noble Lord may be pleasantly surprised to hear that I accept his comments on grammar and that we are prepared to accept his amendment and not to move Amendment No. 14.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. If I see him in an appropriate place after the conclusion of business, I shall express my thanks in more tangible form. I commend Amendment No. 13.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Review date where new tenancy of severed part of reversion]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("commences") and insert ("arises").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a small clarifying amendment. Clause 11 deals with that complex subject, severance of the reversion. It refers to the situation where a new tenancy commences and then goes on to refer to people's interests under the original tenancy immediately before the date of the beginning of the new tenancy. The use of "commences" in this context is confusing because it suggests that it is intended to identify a particular moment in time. In fact, the clause is merely concerned with the situation where
902
one tenancy is followed immediately by another. This amendment replaces the word "commences" with the more appropriate word "arises". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Amount of Rent]:
Lord Gallachermoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 13, at end insert ("and in particular any premium or equivalent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18 with which it is grouped. These amendments relate to the treatment of premiums and the equivalent tenants' improvements. We discussed this matter in Committee and I hope that this Report stage will give us the opportunity not merely to move the amendments in slightly different form, but to persuade the Minister that they have merit.
The industry working party supports the amendments and has pointed out that the agreement on which the Bill is founded includes a rent review formula that is based on the open market in which the arbitrator shall have regard to the payment of premiums or equivalent. The amendment seeks to give effect to the industry's intention.
Agriculture has only rarely seen the explicit payment of a premium for a tenancy, although it is acknowledged that that may become more common under the new legislation where it suits both parties. It is more common for tenants at the moment to be required to make certain improvements as a term of the tenancy. Those are no more than equivalent to premia. The law should treat such payments equitably so that the tenant does not pay rent where he has already paid capital.
The Bill preserves the wording from the present Act, requiring the arbitrator to disregard tenant's improvements unless they are made under an obligation of a tenancy agreement. When the Minister responded to a debate on that issue in Committee on 12th December, he expressed at col. 1190 the view that that meant that the arbitrator could take the premium nature of the obligation into account in reviewing the rent. We welcomed that statement.
However, the conventional understanding among professionals and arbitrators under the present legislation is that such improvements are treated at rent reviews as though they were the landlord's improvements. It may take a court case to establish that the Minister is right about the advice he gave in Committee. We believe that it is better to avoid the delay, the costs and the uncertainty which a court case would involve by addressing the problem explicitly in the Bill, which is what the amendment proposes. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, the amendment is another attempt to address a concern which we discussed in Committee. Clause 13(2) requires the arbitrator in a rent review to have regard to all relevant factors, subject to certain exceptions. The amendment would then require him to have particular regard to any premium or equivalent. I do not think that

903
that can be right. If he must take account of all factors, he should not then be prompted to have particular regard to specially identified particular factors.
If a premium has been paid, then an arbitrator is surely bound to have regard to that fact as a relevant factor. A tenant's improvement which the tenant is obliged to make is in some sense equivalent to a premium. If the tenant's improvement has to be completed at the beginning of the tenancy, it would be almost an exact equivalent to a premium and the arbitrator would certainly give full weight to it in his considerations. If the improvement is completed later on in the tenancy, its equivalence to a premium will be less and one would expect the arbitrator to give less weight to it accordingly. I appreciate that the intention of the amendment is mainly one of clarification, but the question of how much weight the arbitrator should give to a tenant's improvement which the tenant is obliged to make must be a matter of judgment having regard to the circumstances. To give the arbitrator a legislative shove in a particular direction would surely have the effect of promoting bias. In that sense the amendment goes far beyond its aim of clarification and is therefore undesirable.
I realise that this is a complicated and technical question, but I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment, studying what I have said in Hansard, if necessary.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which was not unexpected. I shall take his advice and study carefully what he said again on the subject. It is undoubtedly technical in character, although it has echoes of the problem I had as a bookkeeping student in the early days in distinguishing between revenue and capital expenditure. The Minister may be over-simplifying the question of how the arbitrator is being encouraged to review the matter in a distinctive fashion, and to make a distinction, as I have tried to do, between premia on the one hand and tenants' improvements on the other. It is a subject of considerable importance, but, as I say, I acknowledge that the Minister has examined the issue with a degree of thoroughness. All I can do at this stage is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment and consult those who advise me to see whether it is still desired to pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Cartermoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 13, at end insert:
("() In arriving at the rent payable under subsection (2) above, the arbitrator shall also take into account the earning capacity of the holding to ensure that the rent payable is one which can be generated from the farming of the holding in question.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the amendment we return—it is important that we do so—to the important question of the fixing of the rent, and the difference between the Government, who believe in the open market, and our suggestion that there should be some reference at least by the arbitrator to the earning
904
capacity of the holding to ensure that the rent payable is one which can be generated from the farming of the holding in question.
That depends upon what one means by the open market, earning capacity, and so forth. There is an assumption as to the concept of the open market, and according to the economic textbooks—I must be careful, as I see that my noble friend Lord Eatwell has joined us—there should be equality of power and information between the buyer and seller to make an open market.
We know that that is not the case in agriculture. In fact, it is the case in very few markets. The land market is a difficult one. There are the wider environmental aspects, the concept of the stewardship of land, and what the economists call the externalities and access, together with a number of other things. The land market is not the normal market where there is equality between buyer and seller if, indeed, that can be found in any market.
I suspect that the Minister will give much the same reply as he did in Committee when he said that it was all right because all the arbitrator has to do is to take into account all the relevant factors. The Government studiously avoided any attempt to define what they meant by the relevant factors, but they say in Clause 13(2),
"all the relevant factors, including (in every case) the terms of the tenancy".
It is interesting to compare and contrast what they say about the arbitrator in Clause 13(2) with what is said in Clause 19(4) which relates to a reference to arbitration of a refusal or failure to give consent for a tenant's improvement. It states:
"The arbitrator shall consider whether, having regard to the terms of the tenancy and any other relevant circumstances"—
we change from "factors" to "circumstances"—
"(including the circumstances of the tenant and the landlord)".
Presumably we have to infer that in Clause 13(4), where the circumstances of the tenant and the landlord are specifically excluded, the Government intend that all the relevant factors that the arbitrator shall take into account shall exclude the circumstances of the tenant and the landlord, because had they wanted to include those matters presumably they would have put the words in as they have done in Clause 19(4). I expect that the Minister will tell me that the use of the words,
"the earning capacity of the holding"
raises the problem of removing the earnings out of the equation of the non-farming activities and diversification activities. Of course, that is covered because, if the farm meets the business condition in Clause 1(2), where the word "farmed" is used,
"all or part of the land comprised in the tenancy is farmed for the purposes of the trade or business".
The Government are happy that that phrase should include all the non-farming activities. So that point can be dealt with easily.
While we are on the subject of arbitration, it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify a misunderstanding which has arisen in discussions outside the House. We referred in Committee to "pendulum arbitration" which occurs in Clause 19(5)—in other words, the arbitrator can only unconditionally approve the provision of the

905
proposed tenant's improvement or may withhold his approval. That unconditional approval or refusal (the pendulum arbitration, as it has been called) relates only to the provision or otherwise of the tenant's improvement before it is provided.
The idea has grown up that that applies also to arbitration on all the other matters. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is intended that the normal arbitration procedure will apply to matters such as rent fixing, the value of tenants' improvements and so forth, and that the arbitrator's unconditional power—we shall be coming to that in a later amendment, but it is helpful to raise it now—applies only to that specific circumstance, and not to the general run of arbitration which, as I say, deals with rent, the value of tenants' improvements and other matters.
I return to the weaknesses, as I see them, of the open market. There is supposed to be an open market in the purchase, sale and leasing of milk quotas. Of course, that is an entirely artificial market and artificial situation that produces artificial prices. With the advent of the farm business tenancy, that is likely to happen in respect of the land market. Under the Bill, the same could happen to rents.
Acceptance of the amendment would help to overcome the problem that will undoubtedly arise for arbitrators. They will have to arbitrate on rents, effectively, under two Acts of Parliament—those tenancies which fall under the 1986 Act and those which fall under the new Act. The arbitrators must separate their thinking when considering such problems. I believe that however hard they try they will find that extremely difficult. Acceptance of my amendment will help to overcome the problem.
I hope that in the light of those comments the Government will reconsider the matter. I know that the wording of the amendment is not perfect but I hope that the Government will introduce an amendment indicating that not only the open market is involved. There should be some minimal direction to the arbitrator regarding the earning capacity of the holding. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord is identical to Amendment No. 41, which we considered in Committee. As I explained at that time, the amendment has the effect of restricting the list of factors to be taken into account by an arbitrator at a rent review. Judging from the noble Lord's remarks, he has misunderstood the weight attached to the word "farming" in Clause 1. It would not embrace any non-agricultural enterprises. I shall deal with that matter in a moment.
The noble Lord elaborated further his fears about tender rents at open market levels. There is a natural tendency for people to bid high in order to secure a tenancy and, if the agreement permits a rent review at the customary three-year interval, they will not have long before what might be described as the. "true" rental level can be assessed by an arbitrator. There is no particular difficulty there.
If a holding is being used for non-agricultural enterprises within the terms of the tenancy agreement that must be a "relevant factor" for the arbitrator to take
906
into account. I recollect that the examples I gave in Committee were caravan sites and pony trekking enterprises. I might add the example of a farm shop selling the produce of a horticultural holding. Many other examples spring readily to mind. Why should the rent for holdings used in that way be determined solely on the basis of actual farming activities carried out? The inevitable consequence will be that landlords let land only on condition that agriculture will be the sole user.
The noble Lord asked about pendulum arbitration and rent reviews. As he said, a later amendment more naturally embraces the subject. Arbitration under Clause 19 is a simple yes or no to consent for an improvement. But the arbitration in respect of a rent review requires the exercise of judgment as to the rent that is properly payable. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
I do not believe that the noble Lord has made his case; indeed, I see some grave disadvantages in it. I hope that my explanation will enable him to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not believe that I shall convince the Minister. I would have been happy to take the amendment away and redraft it or allow the Government to redraft it. The principle was accepted and that could easily have been achieved, taking into account the point the Minister made, if I had referred to the "occupation" of the holding in question rather than to the "farming" of the holding in question. I would have been willing to consider that change in order to meet the Minister's point. It is only a matter of detail, although I appreciate that it is an important detail. It could have been corrected in the drafting.
It is clear that the Government are intent that the open market shall hold sway, even though no one in the industry believes that there is a true open market on the letting of land. It is important that the industry outside this House realises where, in this regard, the Government are coming from and where we are coming from. The easiest way to make that clear is to ask for the opinion of the House.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Eatwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Ennals, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Falkender, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Falkland, V.

Carter, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gallacher, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Geraint, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

David, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Desai, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

907

Gregson, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Meston, L.

Haskel, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Monkswell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Mulley, L.

Hughes, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Nicol, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ogmore, L.

Jeger, B.

Parry, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Pyrs-Davies, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rea, L.

Judd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kennet, L.

Richard, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Seear, B.

Listowel, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Varley, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hooper, B.

Ailsa, M.

Howe, E.

Aldington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Balfour, E.

Kingsland, L.

Beloff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blaker, L.

Lawrence, L.

Blatch, B.

Layton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Leigh, L.

Boardman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Borthwick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookes, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cadman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Marlesford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mersey, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Milverton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Courtown, E.

Mottistone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Newall, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Faithfull, B.

Palmer, L.

Finsberg, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Flather, B.

Pender, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Prior, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Quinton, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rawlings, B.

Hardinge, V.

Renton, L.

Harman-Nicholls, L.

Renwick, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rodney, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hertford, M.

Savile, L.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Selborne, E.

908

Skelmersdale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Slim, V.

Tebbit, L.

Somerset, D.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stewartby, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strange, B.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Wakeham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.3 p.m.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Tenant's right to compensation for tenant's improvement]:
Lord Cartermoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 20, at end insert ("save that where milk quota was registered in relation to land held under a tenancy to which the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applied and which was let immediately on the expiry of that tenancy as a farm business tenancy, and where no claim was made for compensation in respect of that quota under the Agriculture Act 1986, that Act shall still apply to that milk quota which shall not be the subject of any other claim for compensation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may help the Minister if I say that I have that look about me which means that I am not going to divide the House on this amendment.
The amendment deals with a technical point, and I wish to raise also another point which I mentioned in Committee.
The first relates to the situation where a farmer moves from land held under a tenancy to which the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 applied. The amendment seeks to ensure that if he does not take from that holding the compensation for milk quota under the 1986 Act and he moves to another holding belonging to the same landlord and so on, he will still be able to claim the compensation. In other words, he will be able to carry with him the compensation. The Minister may wish to reflect on that point, which is important. We have been asked to raise that matter so that it is clear that the compensation for the milk quota is "transportable" from one tenancy to the next.
As we are dealing with milk quotas, I should like to raise again a point that I raised in Committee. Although the Minister offered to discuss the matter with me, we did not have an opportunity to do so. He may like to reflect again on this matter.
Perhaps I may give an example of a tenant who has an existing holding under the 1986 Act with milk quota allocated from, for example, 1983 or 1984. He then takes on a tenancy under this Act and buys quota for the new holding. I am told that if he then gives up the two holdings, under the milk quota rules in Europe the landlord may be entitled to compensation for that second lot of quota which the tenant has purchased for his new farm, happily thinking that, as he had purchased it, all the value belonged to him. It is a fairly straightforward point. It would be helpful if the Minister were to reflect upon that. The point was made to me by a practitioner. I am sure that, under the milk quota rules from Brussels, that would be the case.

909
With regard to the amendment, it would be helpful to know whether the tenant is able to transport the value of the compensation of his quota; that it is possible to crystallise it at the end of one tenancy and then transfer it to the next tenancy without the involvement of any cash.
Secondly—and this is a separate but related matter—is it possible for a tenant who has bought some quota for a holding under this Act and has used all his money, with no involvement from the landlord, to then find that when he claims compensation the landlord may be entitled to some compensation for the second lot of quota? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his explanation. Despite the fact that he is a professional in such matters, I am sure that he will be the first to admit that milk quota is a fearfully complicated and technical subject into which we venture at our peril. The amendment would allow the parties to use the Agriculture Act provisions where they took up a farm business tenancy immediately after a tenancy under the 1986 Act.
If that were allowed by the Bill, it would give rise to even more horrific complications than are already involved in dealing with milk quota. In effect, there would be two separate systems applying to a holding—one under the existing legislation and the other under the Bill.
Dealing with changes made to the registered quota after the new tenancy began would be a nightmare. If the tenant bought or sold quota—perhaps through part of his milk production business which was not subject to his tenancy—it would involve very complex calculations to determine exactly how the Agriculture Act compensation should be resolved. How would one know whether the tenant had sold his old quota or his new quota? The quota register records only the total amount of quota available to the producer at a point in time. If one supposes that the producer owns some land of his own besides the tenanted land, matters become even more confused.
I must confess that the legislation is difficult enough to follow as it stands, but at least under the Bill as drafted there is a clear cut-off point—the end of an agricultural tenancy under the Agricultural Holdings Act. Obviously there will be a number of issues which the parties must sort out between them in order to settle up at the end of the tenancy, and milk quota will simply be one of those matters.
I believe that by far the better legislative course is to give parties that clear legal cut-off. It does not prevent them reaching another arrangement if they find, for whatever reason, that they cannot settle up at the end of the 1986 Act tenancy. I am advised that the Tenancy Reform Industry Group does not support the amendment. Therefore, I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will withdraw it.
The noble Lord asked whether a landlord would have an interest where the tenant buys additional quota and it is added to another area of land. I am advised that the landlord would have such an interest. The European rules require all production units to be aggregated.
910
However, parties may agree to apportion quota between parts of a Euro-holding. It is a complex area. I shall reflect on the noble Lord's remarks. If I can shed further light on the question, I shall of course write to him.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. He is absolutely correct. As regards milk quota—I refer back to today's Question Time—it is true to say that professionals need almost continuous refreshers when dealing with such questions. I shall read Hansard and take advice on the matter. However, the problem is the total amount of quota that is held on the register and its disaggregation.
I was extremely interested to note that the noble Earl confirmed that the advice I received regarding the Euro-situation is correct. It is perhaps exactly a case where guidance notes from the Government would be most helpful. I hope that the RICS—and, indeed, all the industry groups—will take note of the point. It would be a comparatively rare case, but it could be extremely expensive to the tenant if it occurred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Consent of landlord as condition of compensation for tenant's improvement]:
Lord Gallachermoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert ("relating to the tenant's improvement which is the subject of the consent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24 with which it is grouped. In doing so, I assume that the noble Earl will speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 25 which are tabled in his name and which also form part of the group.
Our two amendments were first considered in Committee. They provide that the landlord may attach conditions to a consent to a proposed tenant's improvements only in so far as they relate to the improvement which is the subject of the consent. They thus prevent the landlord from using the opportunity of a request for consent to a proposed tenant's improvement to attach conditions which make alterations to a farm business tenancy which are not relevant to the improvement itself. They are a protection for the tenant who might otherwise be put off from seeking to make desirable improvements.
The Government have tabled amendments which appear to us at this point, subject to the noble Earl's confirmation, to have the same effect as ours. We believe that our amendments are clear and unambiguous, but if the Government could confirm that their amendments fulfil the same purpose we should prepared to look at them favourably. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to address the two amendments tabled in my name which have been grouped with those to which the noble Lord spoke; namely, Amendments Nos. 21 and 25. The noble Lord will no doubt recall that he spoke to Amendments Nos. 57 and 64 in Committee—that is the Committee stage numbering—and sought clarification of the intention behind Clauses 17(3) and 18(2) in respect of variations in the terms of a tenancy

911
as a condition of a landlord giving consent for an improvement. I explained then that I was not in the least opposed to a requirement that conditions must relate to the improvement proposed by the tenant. I undertook to look constructively at the wording of those clauses.
I believe that the amendments tabled in my name achieve the result intended by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. In the case of Clause 17, any variation in the tenancy agreement required by a landlord as a condition of giving consent must be related to the tenant's proposed improvement. In the case of Clause 18, which relates to compensation for planning permission, any variation in the tenancy agreement must be related specifically to the tenant's proposed physical improvement or proposed change of use for which planning permission is to be sought. Although the wording in my amendments differs from that contained in the noble Lord's amendments, I hope that he will allow my wording to prevail on this occasion and feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response and for the assurance that he has given me regarding the effect of the amendments tabled in his name. In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert:
("() The variation referred to in subsection (3) above must be related to the tenant's improvement in question.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Gallachermoved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 30, at end insert:
("(5) This section does not apply in any case where the tenant's improvement consists of one or more of the following—

(a) growing annual crops;

(b) pasturing;

(c) beneficial acts of husbandry;

(d) liming of land; or

(e) application to the land of purchased manure or fertiliser, unless there is provision to the contrary in an agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29. Both amendments are concerned with tenant right. The Bill provides that for a tenant's improvement to be eligible for compensation it must have the landlord's written consent. In all cases bar planning permissions the question of consent can be referred to arbitration.
The proposed new subsection lists five items of tenant right as specific exceptions to that rule. If approved, no written consent would be needed for those essentially operational matters to be eligible for compensation. The parties' freedom is preserved by allowing them to contract otherwise in a written agreement.
As regards valuation, the general rule of the Bill is that a tenant's improvements should be valued for the value that they add to the holding. The amendment
912
maintains the traditional approach to essentially operational improvements of their value to an incoming tenant, so that the tenant will farm as though he were the incoming tenant.
Under English common law, anything that is fixed to land becomes the property of the landowner. It is the peculiar position of the farm tenant that many of his day-to-day actions fix value to the landowner's land. Tenant right grew up to address that problem, creating a customary claim to compensation which the law steadily consolidated until the custom was finally abolished in 1947. The custom of tenant right reflected the fact that the agricultural year has no absolute end and beginning and the desirability of encouraging the tenant to farm as though he were the incoming tenant.
The Agricultural Tenancies Bill removes the legal basis for tenant right by insisting absolutely on the consent of either the landlord or the arbitrator. Nonetheless, it seems likely that over time the courts would intervene to recreate some customary claim to tenant right. Rather than face the cost and uncertainty of that process, and the denial of fair treatment to some outgoing tenants along the way, we feel it best to tackle the question as part of the Bill.
The approach taken in the first amendment to Clause 17 is to identify five specific exceptions to the general rule requiring consent for compensation. The list has been prepared after discussion with valuers and farmers from all parts of the country. The basic principles used in selecting the five items from among the many possible heads of claim are that they are operational rather than policy items. Policy items or capital expenditure should be addressed between the parties. The items listed are the running operational consequences of policy decisions.
Most written agreements could be expected to cover those items, but there will be some tenancies with only a sketchy written basis and others that are purely oral. In those cases the Bill's present form would require the tenant to seek the landlord's written consent—perhaps every year in a tenancy from year to year. That is likely to feel unnatural to both parties. The tenant may feel awkward about taking the matter to arbitration and sometimes may not even have the time: the requirement is for the arbitrator's prior consent. Most tenants will simply assume the matter is covered and be badly surprised should they find a landlord making it clear that he is not required to pay. Without some cover such as that proposed in the amendment, other tenants will clearly feel much more cautious about committing themselves to normal operations on the farm in the last years of the tenancy. That would not be in the interests of the incomer, the owner or the industry and would be bad for the reputation of the legislation.
The five heads of the claim are given in the amendment. Therefore, I shall not take up the time of noble Lords by reciting them. The amendment provides a general rule which would operate as a default but which would give the parties the opportunity to make other arrangements in a written agreement, so honouring the approach of the Bill. It will be for valuers to address the proper compensation in the circumstances. The amendment makes no reference to the detailed

913
regulations under the 1986 Act, which in any event have not been revised for inflation. The measure of compensation should be that set out in the second amendment: the value to the incomer, reflecting the character of those items as running rather than capital expenditure. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have listened with interest to all that the noble Lord has said on this complex and rather technical subject. I have to say that I have some sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment, but I do question whether this is the type of detailed provision which is appropriate in the Bill.
The improvements which the noble Lord has listed are all agricultural improvements for which agricultural tenants are entitled to compensation. But we are now dealing with farm business tenancies, and we must consider also whether there may not be some non-agricultural improvements which in years to come would equally merit inclusion in the list. If we adopt this approach, I can see us being pressed periodically to make additions to the list.
I have another concern. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord is relatively short, but it would be essential for some of the terms such as "beneficial acts of husbandry" to be defined more precisely. We would be incorporating a relatively long and detailed provision about a relatively minor matter into a Bill which is intended to provide a basic framework with key provisions. If the tenant is undertaking a long-term programme of, for example, fertilising, liming or other measures to improve soil fertility, it is really more appropriate for him to seek specific consent. And, if it is a matter of growing crops and things which are relevant only during the last year of the tenancy, then surely it is sensible for the tenant—who will have had 12 months' notice—to arrange to get all the necessary consents for the items on which he will be claiming compensation.
I have to say that I think that this is an issue which should be covered by the RICS guidelines, not the Bill. What one might envisage is a standard clause which could be used in most tenancy agreements, giving consent to the tenant undertaking certain activities and being entitled to compensation for them. There would be no problem about adding new items if the industry considered it necessary. Furthermore, landlords have an interest in seeing that an outgoing tenant maintains the holding properly.
Finally, there is the question of how the compensation should be calculated. It is generally acknowledged that we are dealing with relatively small .amounts of compensation and I would suggest that whichever method is used there is not going to be a great deal of difference in the amount of compensation which the tenant receives for the specific categories of tenant-right matters. I do advocate the simple approach adopted in
914
the Bill, which I believe has the industry's support and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, did I hear him aright? Did he suggest that the landlord's consent should be asked if a farmer wishes to lime his ground?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I was suggesting that, because that is, or can be, in the nature of a long-term improvement on a holding. It is a programme that is sometimes undertaken not just one year in isolation but over a succession of years if the soil fertility is to be improved. I would suggest that it is a matter that is appropriately addressed, perhaps in the tenancy agreement in the form of a standard clause.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the Minister's response is not unexpected and I thank him for it because it contains sufficient detail to enable me to discuss again with our advisers whether or not it is desired to pursue this question further. I was particularly intrigued by the offer to consider the formula of a standard clause. We shall look at that in particular to avoid some of the disbenefits which the Minister explained in his response to my remarks. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Conditions in relation to compensation for planning permission]:
Lord Gallachermoved Amendment No. 23:
Page 9, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 26. Amendment No. 23 is in the nature of a paving amendment, so I turn at once to Amendment No. 26, which is the important part of this grouping. Amendment No. 26 seeks to make an important exception to the provision of Clause 18 regarding the rules about obtaining the prior consent of a landlord before applying for planning provision. Agricultural business tenancies in our view are likely to extend over a number of years. Indeed most of the received wisdom on the subject is that one of the benefits that may flow from this Bill will be the fact that tenancies will be for longer periods and this will allow both the landlord and the tenant to fully benefit from the fact that it is not a short tenancy of excessively short duration.
However, if the tenancy is for a number of years, say five, during this time planning law or regulations could change quite dramatically. We are very well aware at the present time of many well-meaning people who are strongly advocating much extended planning regulation in the countryside. I think it is appropriate to take notice of this in considering a Bill of this kind. In addition to the propaganda which—if that is not too harsh a word—is being put around in favour of planning extensions in the countryside, the planning authorities, it has to be said, are seeking to extend their powers in this particular area. It has also to be said, in fairness, that the seeking of that extension is in many cases quite legitimate.

915
On the other hand we feel that the nature of farming changes are such that major changes in planning law during the currency of a farm business tenancy could seriously affect the operation of the farm. Indeed there is much in this Bill which allows for flexibility in this regard and we welcome it. While talking of change, one has only for example to contrast the original proposals by former Commissioner MacSharry for revising the CAP with what emerged at the end of the day largely due to some powerful argument well received by the United Kingdom which resulted in the removal of restraints which would have had a very adverse effect on the economy of many farmers in Britain.
As I have said, the Bill recognises the importance of flexibility. What we are seeking to do in this amendment is to ensure that that flexibility is not subject to a barrier because a change has taken place in planning law with the passage of time which would not have existed had the particular development been necessarily undertaken at an earlier stage in the tenancy. Amendment No. 26, as I say, now seeks to protect a farmer from such changes. I think it is an important issue and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond sympathetically to it. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his explanation of this amendment. However, an important effect of the amendment would be that if the planning laws change after a farm business tenancy has been taken up and the tenant applies for such planning permission as is then needed for an improvement, obtains that permission and quits the holding before completing the improvement, he will subsequently be entitled to compensation for the planning permission without having had the landlord's consent. We have already debated this afternoon, in respect of Clause 17, the basic principle under the Bill that a tenant's entitlement to compensation rests upon securing the landlord's consent. I see no good reason to depart from that principle in the circumstances of changed requirements under the planning laws for physical improvements or changes of use.
If, at the start of the tenancy, there was no requirement for planning permission then, ipso facto, the tenant could not have claimed compensation for such permission. I come now to the key point. Refusal by the landlord to consent to the tenant applying for planning permission does not prevent the tenant from making the application. It simply means that, if he obtains planning permission and quits the holding before completing the relevant improvement, or effecting the relevant change of use, he will not be entitled to compensation from the landlord for the planning permission on its own.
There is a similar point with regard to liming which we have just discussed. The tenant does not need the landlord's consent to carry out liming. He only needs it if he wishes to claim compensation. The principle is exactly the same. If the building, or whatever the improvement is, has been completed with the landlord's consent, then the tenant is entitled to compensation, which may include an element for the value of the planning consent under Clause 20(4) of the Bill. In
916
practice, of course, it is usually the proposed improvement or change of use itself which is more important than the planning permission. That is because, if a landlord refuses consent to what the tenant wants to do, the tenant will not receive compensation for it and the question of planning permission is unlikely to arise anyway unless an arbitrator overrules the landlord.
Almost every landlord will be aware that nowadays rural developments, whether or not of agricultural origin, are likely to require planning permission. If asked by a tenant for consent to make an improvement or change of use which benefits the holding, landlords will understand that planning permission is probably needed. The parties then decide who is best placed to apply to the local authority.
Changes in planning law are something of a red herring. If a new requirement for planning permission is imposed, that is no reason for the tenant to be entitled to compensation for obtaining such permission without consent. If the consent is refused, that does not prevent him from seeking the planning permission in any event.
I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will be more than somewhat reassured and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I found the noble Earl's response somewhat disappointing and, as someone who is not a practitioner in this field, a trifle removed from reality.
We are agreed that farming will change radically, even in the short term. Certainly in the longer term it would be a very bold man who attempted to forecast what a typical farm —whether a mixed farm or a specialised farm—will look like five years after a farm tenancy agreement has been entered into. It would be an even bolder man who would assume that local authorities will not seek to extend considerably their powers over planning law in the countryside.
The Minister sought to assure me that I see difficulties which either will not arise or, if they do arise, will be capable of resolution. I hope that he is right because, for my own money, I would be inclined to advise any person contemplating a farm business tenancy to take a long look at what he was putting his hand to and, in particular, to try to anticipate events. Those of us who have come up against the planning machine in urban areas know to our cost and sorrow that, even at the hands of our friends in government, some painful lessons have had to be learned. Equally, when decisions have been given in urban areas they are sometimes so ringed with planning conditions that, having obtained the consent one sought, one sometimes wonders whether it would have been better to have lost both the application and the appeal.
Nevertheless, I shall take on board what the noble Earl said and shall study it carefully. I do not wish to be a prophet of doom and gloom. Nevertheless, I feel that this is an aspect of the Bill which is not sufficiently clearly resolved. Although we may not return to the issue, it may be that those who look ahead in these matters should be aware that there are dangers on this score. I understand the motivation for seeking to

917
regulate the question of planning consents within the Bill, but Amendment No. 26 seeks to introduce a measure of flexibility and tolerance to give the tenant farmer a greater measure of protection, not so much against his landlord as against the effect that changes in the law which will result from growing consciousness of the environment may have upon him as a farmer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert:
("() The variation referred to in subsection (2) above must be related to the physical improvement or change of use in question.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Reference to arbitration of refusal or failure to give consent or of condition attached to consent]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord Cartermoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 31, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 34 and insert ("withhold his approval for the proposed tenant's improvement or may approve it either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he may think fit after considering the matters set out in subsection (4) above.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 28 deals with Clause 19(5). It was helpful in relation to a previous amendment to have the Minister's agreement regarding our understanding that pendulum arbitration—where the arbitrator can say either yes or no but cannot attach any conditions to his decision—applies only to the particular case where a tenant has been refused permission by the landlord for an improvement and has gone to arbitration and in that case the arbitrator can only unconditionally approve the provision or unconditionally withhold it.
We discussed the matter in Committee, but we consider it worthwhile to return to the point because we still feel that this provision is not quite in the real world. It removes a degree of flexibility from the arbitrator. We know as a result of our earlier discussion that this provision does not apply to arbitration in relation to rent or the valuation of tenancy improvements but only to this specific case. Although it is attractive in theory, in practice it could give rise to problems.
There has been a great deal of interest in the concept of pendulum arbitration in relation to industrial relations. It has been discussed by theoreticians, but I am not aware of any instances where it has been applied in practice. I wonder whether the Government, in their desire for simplification, are going too far down the road of lack of flexibility and whether they should not consider the amendment. The amendment would still allow the arbitrator to approve an improvement unconditionally if he wishes or, as often happens in arbitration,
"subject to such conditions as he may think fit after considering the matters set out in subsection (4)"
918
of the clause, which are,
"the terms of the tenancy and any other relevant circumstances (including the circumstances of the tenant and the landlord)".
I believe that this is an area where it would be wise to give the arbitrator some flexibility.
I shall be interested to know why the Government have adopted this approach. Is it based on advice, or because they want to try the system and believe that it will work better? Are there cases in agriculture where that system of arbitration is applied? I am not aware of any cases, but I am prepared to be corrected. Perhaps the noble Earl can show whether there are examples of where this type of arbitration is already working. It is rather like a referendum in which one either says yes or no, and there is no "maybe" about it. It removes that degree of professional flexibility on the part of the arbitrator which we are used to him having. It is a surprising approach to this particular part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has set out his view —both now and in Committee—that Clause 19 of the Bill does not give arbitrators enough flexibility and prevents them from using their professional skills.
In this situation I see the lack of flexibility as a positive advantage. The noble Lord asked why we took that view. A landlord who was prepared to give consent to an improvement but wished to impose conditions would think very carefully whether the conditions he set were sensible. If they were not, in all probability an arbitrator would conclude that it was reasonable for the tenant to provide the improvement and give approval for the tenant to make the improvement and, being entitled to compensation, without any conditions being imposed. As a consequence, both landlord and tenant will be discouraged from adopting extreme positions in the expectation that the arbitrator would split the difference. Both parties would have a real incentive to adopt a constructive approach and make a positive effort to reach agreement without recourse to arbitration. That is to their mutual advantage, because an arbitration is bound to involve them in expense.
The main industry organisations, including the RICS, have considered this question carefully, and I understand that they support the approach adopted in the Bill. I genuinely believe that in this particular instance it is the right approach. I very much hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is interesting that the Minister was not able to provide any practical examples of where pendulum arbitration is being practised. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to come back on that issue.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should have said that the noble Lord was right in his assumption that pendulum arbitration is not currently practised in agriculture.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Bill therefore breaks more new ground. I should be interested to know how an arbitrator can split the difference on a tenant's improvement. If the tenant asks to put up a barn and the

919
landlord says, "No, I am not quite sure about that", I do not see how the arbitrator splits the difference. The provision is a hangover from the normal practice of arbitrators with regard to rents and valuation of tenants' improvements. As I said in Committee, the normal practice of the arbitrator is expensive and sophisticated; it is to divide by two. I believe that the Government are moving into a fairly risky area, even if they have the support of the RICS. I am not sure whether other members of the industry group agree.
We shall not press the point. However, we thought it helpful to put down a marker to warn the industry that that is what will happen. We shall have to sit back and wait to see what happens. I believe that the outcome will be a little more painful than the Government expect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 not to apply
(" . For the purpose of drawing or preparing any instrument under this Act, subsection (1) of section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 shall not apply to any Fellow or Associate Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed a similar amendment in Committee. On bringing it back at Report, we have refined it somewhat in the hope that the refinements will commend themselves to the Government. In addition, rather than making it a debating point in reply, I should state at the outset to the noble Earl that his unstinted praise for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in response to my noble friend's Amendment No. 4 leads me to think that he will have difficulty in disagreeing with the very modest proposition I am about to put to him.
Most annual tenancy agreements are, and for many years have been, drawn by chartered surveyors. Those are currently turned into lifetime tenancies, including in many cases succession for two generations, by the effect of the Agricultural Holdings Act. Chartered surveyors therefore are experienced in drawing agreements which in practice run for many years.
We believe that Amendment No. 30 is justified on the ground of cost compliance. The amendment makes it easier and cheaper to put farm business tenancy agreements into writing because there will no longer be any need either for a solicitor or a barrister to approve the work carried out by a chartered surveyor. Under the Bill we are anxious to ensure that as much as can be put into writing is placed in writing, and we are equally anxious that there should be no deterrent in that regard as a result of legal costs incurred in so doing. We believe that it is in the interests of the industry as a whole that the tenancy agreements are made in writing in order to reduce not only the initial cost but also the potential for subsequent litigation if those agreements are not in writing.
The cheaper process, such as we believe is encompassed in the amendment, will encourage that development. In moving the amendment, I express the hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me a sympathetic reply. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, in Committee I opposed a similar amendment to allow RICS members to draw up farm business tenancy agreements of more than three years' duration. However, I said that I would reflect on the debate. Having done so, I have to say that I found the arguments put forward convincing. We have considered the issue carefully and the Government are willing in principle to give RICS members the necessary power. We are currently preparing an amendment on which we need to have further consultation but which I hope will be ready to be tabled at Third Reading. I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble Lord will feel comfortable in withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the constructive nature of his reply. In the light of it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Service of notices]:
Lord Gallachermoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 15, line 24, leave out from ("by") to end of line 25 and insert ("prepaid post").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed in Committee how notices were to be served. Indeed, I recall that we drew upon the experience of the rules of the Supreme Court relating to the service of documents in force at the time of service. We have taken on board what the noble Earl said and have come up with what we hope is a simple and suitable alternative to the provisions in the Bill. Amendment No. 31 inserts the simple definition "prepaid post" in place of the words in the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for introducing this amendment. I would point out that under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 if service by ordinary pre-paid post was authorised by the Bill and a dispute arose on whether a notice had been served, the onus would be on the recipient to prove that he had not received it. Even supposing that he had not received it, it could be very difficult to convince the court that it had not arrived.
If the post is used to deliver a document the sender would be well advised to use the recorded delivery service and, in particular, to request delivery to him by the Post Office of a copy of the receipt obtained from the addressee. There is no need for the Bill to authorise or require this. The sender can do so of his own volition. I appreciate that Section 93 of the 1986 Act authorises service by recorded delivery post. I am advised that not only is the provision unnecessary but that its effect in practice is arguably to shift the burden of proof on to the addressee to prove that he did not receive the document when the ordinary post is used.
As your Lordships will remember, I said in Committee that the Government were giving further thought to the question of service of notices. We are

921
preparing an amendment to Clause 34 to clarify the rules regarding the giving of notice by means of fax, for example. This is a complex area but we have done some preparation and we shall be consulting the industry very shortly. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for what he said. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Agricultural Holdings Act 1986: Rights to apply for new tenancy
(". Section 36(3) (a) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 shall be amended to insert the words ", or any related ancillary," after the word "agricultural" where it first appears.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. These are three suggested amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. Perhaps I may make the general point that we made in Committee. I hope that the Government are not taking an intransigent stance on the issue. Political points put forward to change the 1986 Act can be debated with the Government. I accept that they would not always accept them. But if, as a matter of good law and practice, there is a chance—it is the only chance we shall have—to put right in this Bill obvious anomalies and weaknesses which those who have to operate the Act have found, I believe that the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not accept that chance.
I realise that in later amendments the Government have put down wording to alter the 1986 Act in the light of discussions in Committee. Amendment No. 32 inserts the words "or any related ancillary" after the word "agricultural" where it first appears in the appropriate section of the 1986 Act. That deals with this point. It is often difficult for successors to satisfy the source of livelihood test: that he or she must have earned their principal source of livelihood from agricultural work for five out of the past seven years.
Successors do not usually succeed to holdings until they are in their thirties and forties or are even older, by which time many of them will have families of their own and the agricultural work will not have been able to sustain the livelihoods of the two families on the farm, the parent and the successor. Thus the close relatives, usually sons, who would otherwise be fully eligible to succeed and who intend to farm have to supplement their incomes. We are all familiar with this in the industry. The work can take a variety of forms. It is usually agricultural or is related to agriculture—for example, contract farming (working as a contractor) or whatever. The amendment suggests that the 1986 Act should be amended to reflect the reality of the situation and to ensure that those who are suitable and have succession rights can realise them.
Amendment No. 33 is more technical. Its purpose would be to ensure that circumstances in which a reduction of rent is agreed, which cannot have been intended to result in the resetting of a three-year
922
time-limit for reviews and which do not fall within the present exceptions—for example, where a landlord and tenant agree on the surrender of a cottage on the holding with a consequent reduction pro rata in rent, and vice versa, where a cottage is taken on—do not, as they presently would, reset the time limit. I had the chance to bring this point to the attention of the Minister when we met before Report stage. It is a technical point which has been put to me by a leading practitioner. I hope that the Minister will accept the point and either accept this wording or suggest that he will come back with his own wording.
Amendment No. 34 follows the lines of an amendment that we discussed in Committee. Paragraphs 9(2) and 10(1) (d) of Schedule 3 to the 1986 Act make provision for conservation covenants to protect tenants from the consequences of a breach of the rules of good husbandry as referred to above. However, the landlord must agree to the covenant either in the tenancy agreement or in a separate written agreement. We feel that tenants should not face such harsh consequences for inadvertent breaches of the rules of good husbandry simply because they have entered into set-aside, for example. The rules of good husbandry are outdated and inconsistent with modern farming methods, and in particular with environmental schemes. If we relate that point to Amendment No. 34, subsection (3), which deals with set-aside, tenants entering into set-aside, and indeed into environmentally sensitive area management agreements, could in certain circumstances, as I have just mentioned in the other respect, fall foul of the rules of good husbandry. No allowance is made in the rules for conservation management.
Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Amendment No. 34 are not perfect. But in that amendment we are trying to grasp the point of how the good husbandry rules, with which we are all familiar, are not now related to modern agreements for conservation, for set-aside or for environmentally sensitive areas etc.
These three amendments are all related to improvements to the 1986 Act. They are not in any sense political. They deal with matters which have been drawn to our attention and which would improve the working of the 1986 Act. This is our chance to make those improvements. I hope that the Government will be able to accept them—or at least will be able to accept the principle behind them and offer to return with their own wording. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's reasons for wishing to make these amendments to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. However, much as this will disappoint him, I regret that I am no more persuaded than when he proposed the same amendments at Committee stage.
Throughout all the discussions leading up to the Bill, the Government have assured the industry that the new legislation would not be retrospective and that we would not amend the 1986 Act. The new clauses set out in Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 would breach that commitment. I recognise that the amendments are intended to facilitate diversification in the first case and conservation in the second case. But the fact remains

923
that they would be substantial alterations to the parties' rights in relation to existing tenancies. The first new clause would have the effect of making it easier for a close relative to succeed to a succession tenancy. This would be a major change; and there would be those who would ask, including no doubt some of your Lordships, why in that case we could not impose various other conditions on succession tenancies, or indeed abolish succession rights altogether. If we have given a commitment not to interfere with existing tenancies, which the industry fully supports, we cannot simply say that this is an amendment which is meant to be helpful. To some it will be unhelpful.
For similar reasons, I am afraid I am not able to accept the other new clause set out in Amendment No. 34 which would alter the good husbandry responsibilities applying to all existing tenancies under the 1986 Act. Even with the best of intentions, we cannot pick and choose some areas to tinker with.
Turning to Amendment No. 33, the noble Lord explained very clearly some of the complexities of the rent provisions contained in the 1986 Act. Naturally, I consider that the approach to rent contained in the Bill is a very great improvement on Schedule 2 to that Act.
The real difficulty with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord is, of course, that it is not concerned with any provision within the Bill itself. Its effect would be to amend the statutory rent provisions applicable to a tenancy granted not under the Bill but under the 1986 Act. As I have just made clear, we do not wish to make retrospective changes, however meritorious a case could be made for those changes. The noble Lord's amendment is, I do not doubt, well-intentioned in that he seeks to correct what is seen as a technical deficiency in the present rent provisions. I make no comment today as to whether there is such a deficiency: however, if the agreement were to be made there would be an impact on existing tenancy agreements which might work to the disadvantage of one party or the other.
I suspect—indeed I know—that the noble Lord will not like these arguments. But the Government are committed to not interfering retrospectively with existing tenancies. We intend to honour that commitment. I hope that the noble Lord will understand when I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I certainly understand the Minister, but I do not agree with him. I would be prepared to concede that Amendments Nos. 32 and 34 are at least debatable: they stretch the 1986 Act. I am advised that perhaps we should not have grouped Amendment No. 33 with the other two. It relates clearly to a highly technical point, where an apparent weakness has been discovered in the 1986 Act. The Government are taking a very intransigent view. Leading practitioners point out an obvious anomaly in the 1986 Act which they have the chance to put right, and they take up this very stubborn attitude that, even though it is bad law, they are not going to change it. I shall certainly want to take advice on Amendment No. 33 and return to it at Third Reading—or perhaps the Minister will have a chance to reflect on what he said and
924
consider whether, on the technical point in this amendment—a point that I put to him before we entered the Report stage—it is worth considering. As I say, the point is highly technical, but I am told that it is very important. In the light of the Minister's reply I shall certainly withdraw this amendment, but we should look again at Amendment No. 33. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Crown land]:
Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 16, line 20, after ("land") insert ("or, if there is no such department, such person as Her Majesty may appoint in writing under the Royal Sign Manual").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to the provisions relating to Crown land. I am advised that there may be some such land not forming part of the Crown estate where the management may rest with government departments as a matter of administrative practice rather than by virtue of statute. In such cases it is desirable to have a means of removing any doubt about who is to be regarded as the owner of the interest in that land for the purposes of this Bill. The amendment achieves that objective. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Gallachermoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 17, line 32, after second ("a") insert ("written").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is directed at Clause 36(3) in the Bill, which provides that,
"A tenancy granted pursuant to a contract shall be taken for the purposes of this Act to have been granted when the contract was entered into".
Therefore, we are advised that, if there is a contract before 1st September 1995 for a tenancy which is granted after that date, the tenancy will be governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and will not be a farm business tenancy. Contracts for leases of three years or under do not have to be in writing as under Section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. A landlord, or a tenant, might therefore find that he had entered into a contract without being aware that he had done so or of the consequences. If the contract was in writing, which is the purpose of the amendment, the parties would probably apply their minds to what they were doing and so the accident would not happen. If they did not, there would be clear evidence that there was a contract and so the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 would apply.
I move the amendment in order to have the benefit of the noble Earl's view on the proposition which is contained in my reasoning in support of it. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the problem so clearly. We certainly do not want to set any traps in the new legislation. We thought that Clause 1(4), read with Clause 36(3), was satisfactory. But in view of the unease which has been

925
expressed by the noble Lord, I am prepared to have another look at the matter and, if necessary, return with a government amendment at a later stage. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his assurance. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule [Consequential amendments]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 28, line 27, at end insert:
("The Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (c. 5)
30A. In Schedule 6 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (eligibility to apply for a new tenancy under Part IV of that Act), in paragraph 6 (occupation to be disregarded for purposes of occupancy condition), in sub-paragraph (1) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
"(dd) under a farm business tenancy, within the meaning of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, for less than five years (including a farm business tenancy which is a periodic tenancy),".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, at Committee stage which I undertook to consider. It is grouped with the noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 39, which seeks to cover the same point.
The amendment in my name would safeguard the interests of an applicant who hoped to succeed to an agricultural holding under the succession provisions of the 1986 Act and who had to prove that he or she did not already occupy a commercial unit of agricultural land. Schedule 6 to the 1986 Act lists various types of short-term tenancy which should be disregarded for that purpose. This amendment would add to the list agricultural land occupied under farm business tenancies for a fixed term of less than five years, including periodic tenancies. As such, it is a genuine consequential amendment. Clearly such tenancies could not have been included in the 1986 Act because they will not exist until the Bill comes into force. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have today dealt with three groups in which we and the Government have put down very similar amendments. I believe that so far the score is one to one: the Government have accepted one of our amendments and we have accepted one of theirs. I am prepared to let the Minister win two to one on this occasion. I do not propose to move my amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]

Cleveland (Structural Change) Order 1994
7.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th December 1994 be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
926
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order be approved. This is the second structural change order to be put before your Lordships following a review by the Local Government Commission for England. This order was considered on 11 th January by the other place, where it was approved. On 18th January 1994, having considered the commission's report and the representations which were made to him on it, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced his decision to accept the commission's proposals for Cleveland. It is the Government's belief that the establishment of four unitary authorities on the boundaries of the existing borough councils will best combine effective and convenient local government with a reflection of the interests and identities of local people.
The local government commission also recommended in its report that for ceremonial and related purposes the county area of Cleveland should be divided between County Durham and Yorkshire. While the Government have accepted that proposal in principle, we shall not be taking a final decision until we have reached conclusions on the future structure of local government in County Durham and North Yorkshire. The present order does not, therefore, address that issue, which will be dealt with in in a later statutory instrument.
It has been suggested that no orders should be made until the Government have made decisions on all the commission's representations. We do not agree with that argument. Such a delay would prolong uncertainty for all involved in local government in Cleveland, not least the staff, and delay the benefits of change in Cleveland and elsewhere.
The Government's original intention was to implement reorganisation on 1st April 1995. That timetable, however, had to be altered following Cleveland County Council's judicial review application, which was turned down by the High Court in June. To have proceeded on our original timetable would have put at risk both a smooth transition and proper provision of essential services.
There are no substantive proceedings currently before the courts. However, as some of your Lordships are aware, the county council has applied for leave to appeal by means of an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal and a date for that hearing has not yet been set. Before the order was laid before your Lordships, the Government gave very careful consideration to the question of whether that outstanding application should prevent laying and debating the order, but we concluded that it should not. If your Lordships approve the draft order, we shall of course take stock of the position on legal proceedings before the order is made.
The draft order which is now before your Lordships proposes change to the structure of local government in Cleveland. It provides for Cleveland County Council to be wound up on 1st April 1996 and its functions and powers to be transferred to the four borough councils of Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Langbaurgh-on-Tees (the last-named to be renamed "Redcar and Cleveland").

927
Having considered local views, the Government have decided that all four borough councils should hold elections for the whole council in May 1995. The councillors elected then will have a fresh mandate from the people of Cleveland to plan for the change and then to take over responsibility for running all local authority services from the following April. Because three of the councils were due to hold all-out elections in that year anyway, special provision is required only in the case of Hartlepool, which normally elects one-third of its members annually.
To ensure a smooth transition and safeguard essential services, the Cleveland authorities will be given extra duties and powers to prepare for reorganisation. The draft order distinguishes between what the authorities can do before and after the May 1995 elections. Preparatory work needs to begin from the time the order is made. However, the Government's firm view is that the decisions which will determine the outlook and culture of the successor authorities, together with appointments of chief officers, should be taken by the councillors who are elected in May with responsibility for managing the authorities' new range of functions.
There will be a duty on all five existing councils to co-operate in implementing change. The borough councils will also have access to information which they need and will be able to make the necessary preparations, including budget setting and appointments of staff, for the exercise of the functions which they will inherit from 1st April 1996. The newly elected councils will also be required to consider whether particular functions can best be carried out through voluntary joint arrangements.
The four Cleveland boroughs will be unitary authorities and, as such, they will have responsibility for both local and strategic land-use planning. The Government are determined that, wherever reorganisation takes place, adequate arrangements should be made for strategic planning. For Cleveland, the local government commission recommended that the four authorities should maintain separate local plans but should work together on a joint structure plan.
The Government have accepted that recommendation and the draft order gives effect to it by transferring the county council's strategic planning functions to the borough councils; they can then make the necessary voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan. The Government expect the borough councils to establish satisfactory arrangements and are much encouraged by the proposals that they have published for joint working on strategic planning for the Tees Valley.
The order also provides for a number of other matters on which the Local Government Commission made recommendations or which are consequent upon reorganisation. It paves the way for a combined fire authority for Cleveland which will be created by a separate order under the Fire Services Act 1947 to be made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It provides for representatives of the new unitary authorities to replace the county council's nominees on the Cleveland Police Authority from 1st
928
October 1995 for certain purposes so that they can be involved in decisions on the 1996–97 budget and policing plans. The county council's representatives will remain on the authority for all other purposes until the county council is wound up in the following April.
The order vests the county council's superannuation fund in Middlesbrough Borough Council, which is also designated for the purposes of certain financial regulations.
Finally, the order provides for Redcar and Cleveland's nominees to take the place of the county council's representatives on the North York Moors National Park Committee.
The Government gave very careful consideration as to whether it was necessary to make specific provision for other essential services in the order. However, we concluded that there should be no other statutory joint arrangements. Instead, the order requires authorities to consider whether any voluntary joint arrangements are necessary.
We are encouraged by the willingness of the districts to work together, as demonstrated by their plans for promoting economic development through the Tees Valley Development Company. I also understand that they already work together on a number of issues such as pollution control and transport.
We are also putting before your Lordships general regulations dealing with practical matters such as the transfer of property, rights and liabilities, technical financial matters (such as calculation of the council tax base) and staffing. In the case of staffing, after extensive consultation we have recently announced new measures for a mandatory compensation scheme for those who are made redundant as a result of reorganisation. We are also consulting on a possible scheme for detriment compensation for those who take a drop in salary as a result.
Local government reform in Cleveland has been the subject of vigorous debate locally, and there has inevitably been considerable uncertainty in the area for some time. What is important now, however, is that all concerned with local government in the area direct their efforts to making reorganisation work. The Government have every confidence in the capacity of the local authorities in Cleveland to do so. And, as I said earlier, the other place considered the order on 11 th January, and it was approved. I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th December 1994 be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committed]—(Viscount Ullswater.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord Bancroftrose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from ("That") to end and insert ("this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft order laid before the House on 8th December 1994 and to re-lay it only when:

(a) they have considered the desirability of including in the draft order proper provision for essential services such as child protection, special education needs, care in the community and emergency planning, and of

929
ensuring that employees of all existing authorities in Cleveland will have equal chances of securing posts in authorities in Cleveland following reorganisation;

(b) they have published their decisions on the recommendations of the Local Government Commission in respect of all of the English counties, thereby enabling this House to consider the draft order in the light of those decisions; and

(c) the case of Regina v. Local Government Commission for England and Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Cleveland County Council has been finally determined by the courts.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amending Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should first like to thank the Secretary of State for the Environment for his courtesy in seeing some of us a couple of weeks ago. I must thank also the noble Viscount for the typically deft exposition which he has just given; alas, I remain unconvinced.
My amendment was drafted to avoid any conflict with the conventions of your Lordships' House respecting subordinate legislation. It has been approved for propriety, both in principle and in every detail, by the House authorities. It is well precedented with precedents going back for more than a decade and, most recently, on 31st January last.
The order itself is specific to Cleveland, the first shire county proposed for abolition. But if it clears this House, as it cleared another place, it will set precedents for many other counties. I therefore ask your Lordships' indulgence if, in introducing my amendment, I gently reinterpret some of the noble Viscount's points.
To begin with there are the objectives, explicit or implicit, of reorganisation in Cleveland and elsewhere. We were told that one of the Government's prime objectives is to bring local government nearer to the citizen by creating a larger number of smaller unitary authorities, thus ensuring a more efficient delivery of services. Indeed, the Minister for Local Government, Mr. Curry, goes further in showing the original cloven hoof. The Times of 18th January —just five days ago—reported him as being,
"personally committed to seeing unitary authorities throughout England".
—throughout England!
Cleveland is a modest-sized county. It is to be split into four unitary authorities which will be among the smallest in the country. Schumacher's law does not run in a large conurbation if the units are too small. Moreover, the whimsically outspoken chairman of the commission confessed at the recent Association of County Councils' conference, that he knew,
"of no evidence that smaller unitary authorities will be better placed to deliver effective and convenient local services … Surely we are entitled to expect more than assertion before gambling literally billions of pounds of public money on a costly and risky reorganisation".
We are all indebted to Sir John Banham for putting our case so eloquently. It applies to Cleveland, in spades.
A second objective is to do away with the unpopular artificial counties created in 1974, hence the collusion made public in 1993 between the Government and the
930
commission to achieve "early wins"—those are the words of Sir John Banham—in Cleveland, Avon and Humberside. That brought a rebuke from the High Court which said that this,
"does not altogether sit well with the notion that the Commission is an independent body responsive to public opinion rather than Government".
In any event, the Teesside plus separate Hartlepool option favoured by many people, including me, is a return to the pre-Cleveland concept of a single authority managing, speaking and negotiating for a major conurbation: as it were, the former county borough of Teesside. Hartlepool, itself a former county borough, is a special case for historical reasons. I add only that it was in their camp of refuge on the Coatham Marshes where the Teesside people made the last stand in England against William the Conqueror—and very nearly killed him. The king was fighting there when—predictably to those who know the area, but less predictably to those who do not—a sea fret came down and he lost his bearings. He was only just rescued from drowning. There may be the beginning of a moral there.
There is a greater level of community identity in Cleveland than in many of the so-called traditional counties and exactly twice the level of that in Avon—25 per cent. in Avon, 50 per cent. in Cleveland.
A third objective is to satisfy local opinion. Here I have some genuine sympathy for the Government and for the commission. It is devilishly difficult to find the truth about local opinion. The MORI polls can be endlessly reinterpreted so the commission and the Government can quote —and indeed the noble Viscount has just done so—results in support of the four-authority solution. On the other hand, it can be passionately argued that the commission had the views of less than 3 per cent. of the potential electorate and did not even tell them that the four-authority solution was much the most costly. Indeed, the High Court referred to the commission's consultation leaflet, with a curl of the judicial lip, as,
"conduct which in the case of a second-hand car salesman would lead to an appearance at the Old Bailey".
So, like a troop of mature Morris dancers, we could go on belabouring ourselves interminably with pigs' bladders of polls. I confine myself to the incontrovertible; that less than half of those questioned agree that any change is needed and only three out of 10 support the structure which would result from the order.
The text of the amendment is largely self-explanatory. It would defer consideration of the draft order until the Government had been able to consider more fully certain matters. It would be open to the Government to re-lay a draft Cleveland order before the House later this Session. With respect, it is misleading to claim that the amendment would kill the order or postpone it for a year or more, as indeed has been claimed outside the Chamber. The length of postponement is entirely in the Government's hands. If they were sensible, it could be for as little as a few weeks.
The amendment requires the Government to consider including in the draft order proper provision for essential services which are at present the responsibility of the county council. These include child protection, care in

931
the community, emergency planning, special education needs and trading standards. The Government's view, as the noble Viscount explained, is that after reorganisation each of the services can be adequately carried out in the county through voluntary arrangements between the borough councils. I regret to say that I am not reassured by his remarks because I believe that this situation is a serious misconception. The regional CBI, the Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business Club have all opposed the commission's proposals. Similar opposition has been expressed by the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, by local health authorities, by local educational, welfare and health professionals and by many voluntary organisations, groups of disabled people and other users of local authority services. Other noble Lords will, I know, expand on this point. Many of the most sensitive services will have to be provided by voluntary co-operation, as the noble Viscount again pointed out.
By way of particular example, there is no provision in the order for emergency planning; and this in an area with one of the largest concentrations of industrial hazard sites in the whole country. Is it really sensible to leave this to insecure voluntary co-operation? The whole concept can best be likened to deliberately pushing Humpty Dumpty off the wall and then trying to put the broken bits together again in the shape of well-intentioned but insecure joint committees, doubtfully accountable bodies and artificial loose combinations.
The amendment will also enable the Government to remedy a defect in the drafting of the Local Government Act 1992 which has produced great unfairness in the treatment of the staff of local authorities. Because of this defect, which the Government have themselves acknowledged, the staff of the county council will, alas, find themselves at a disadvantage in securing jobs in the post-reorganisation authorities because the existing borough councils cannot be dissolved unless staff remain in place. I heard what the noble Viscount said on this point but I beg the Government not to believe their own propaganda.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment will ensure that the House is not asked to reach a decision on the future of local government in Cleveland in isolation. The final batch of recommendations of the Local Government Commission was published, as the noble Viscount said, on 11th January last. Under the Local Government Act 1992 the Secretary of State can reach a decision on those recommendations six weeks thereafter. My amending Motion will enable the House to have before it the overall shape of the Government's intentions for the future of local government in England before it considers the draft Cleveland order. It is surely unreasonable to expect the House to reach a decision on Cleveland in the absence of such information which will indicate whether what is being proposed for Cleveland is an expensive anomaly.
Finally, I am advised, despite the noble Viscount's preliminary remarks on the subject, that the commission's recommendations for Cleveland, and the Government's decision based on those
932
recommendations, can at present be regarded as the subject of court proceedings. It seems doubtfully proper for this House to be asked to approve draft subordinate legislation when the very basis of that legislation is still subject to challenge in the courts. Paragraph (c) of the amending Motion would preclude such an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I conclude by reminding your Lordships of the debate on the Local Government Commission initiated by my noble friend Lord Cornwallis on 30th March 1994. More than 40 Peers spoke. Virtually all warned of the need to approach this further round of reorganisation cautiously. They did not oppose all change, provided it passed certain tests: for example, that it was demonstrably necessary; that it would provide better and cheaper services; that it was the clear wish of the local people; and that individual authorities were not wrenched out of kilter with common sense. Despite the reassurances of the noble Viscount, I do not believe that the Cleveland case at present remotely passes these tests, least of all that of a cautious approach. The Government are pushing Cleveland well ahead of all other shire counties, for which it will set a precedent for serial murder. These are the essential reasons for tabling my amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from ("That") to end and insert ("this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft order laid before the House on 8th December 1994 and to re-lay it only when:

(a) they have considered the desirability of including in the draft order proper provision for essential services such as child protection, special education needs, care in the community and emergency planning, and of ensuring that employees of all existing authorities in Cleveland will have equal chances of securing posts in authorities in Cleveland following reorganisation;

(b) they have published their decisions on the recommendations of the Local Government Commission in respect of all of the English counties, thereby enabling this House to consider the draft order in the light of those decisions; and

(c) the case of Regina v. Local Government Commission for England and Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Cleveland County Council has been finally determined by the courts.").—(Lord Bancroft.)

7.26 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I begin by placing on record my interest in this subject as chair of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales. In placing that interest on record I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the association has never disputed that there is a case for looking objectively and properly at the subject of the structure of local government in any part of the United Kingdom. The association believes—and many share this view—that the issue of local government reorganisation ought logically to have begun by setting terms of reference that looked at the functions and

933
finance of local government before looking at the appropriate structure to carry out those functions with those financial arrangements.
In speaking in support of the amendment I would also ask your Lordships whether they believe, as many may, the repeated assertions of government Ministers that Cleveland, Avon and Humberside are unpopular. I cast that to one side and view the order without prejudice. The order and the amendment raise the issue of the faults and flaws in the order. As the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, the order could apply to any county in England. It is surely important when considering the order that noble Lords should have before them the fullest information on which to make a judgment and the fullest knowledge of the implications for services and the providers of services in the future. There remain many areas of continued provision of services which are left as questions by the order. I respectfully remind the House that when legislation dealing with local government reorganisation in Scotland and Wales was before the House it contained the details of the continuing provision of those services. I repeat. I do not speak from a position of opposing all change. I believe that change must be justified.
A second reason for supporting the amendment was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. It is the inequitable, unjust and unacceptable fundamental flaw in the legislation which set up the commission and which governs this process. It is the principle of the continuing authority. Where an authority is created as a result of change, of Local Government Commission recommendations and ultimately orders approved by Parliament, and where that continuing authority has the same boundaries as an existing authority, the staff employed by that existing authority are deemed to be in continuing employment and those providing services which will be added to that authority's functions must apply for positions in order to carry out those functions.
That is not a matter of mere assertion. That principle has caused problems in the Isle of Wight where all concerned agreed that the particular proposal was the most logical for the Isle of Wight but where the staff of the district councils were deemed to have to apply for employment and the staff of the county council were deemed to have continuing employment.
That is a fundamental flaw in the legislation which has been acknowledged by the Secretary of State. I understand that, despite offers made from the Opposition Benches, the law has not been amended. The primary legislation which would go through Parliament very quickly to stop this lack of equity in the treatment of staff has not been accepted and therefore the order before the House will perpetuate the difficulties and deep divisions which were created in the case of the Isle of Wight.
Critically important though the unfair treatment of staff is, there is also the disruption to services and the matter of uncertainty to consider. It cannot be a good way to establish a new structure of local government to do so on the basis that some staff will be treated one way and others will be treated less favourably.
934
The second point I reiterate and draw to your Lordships' attention is the final picture of local government in England as a result of the proposals that emerge now that the commission has completed its task. Surely, for anyone to vote in a responsible way, the cost and pattern of the government of England as a whole ought to be part of the consideration that is taken into account when people are considering the future structure of local government in England.
The continuation of vital services of high quality is at risk in Cleveland. As many noble Lords will recall, Cleveland went through a difficult patch in terms of its social services provision. It has since won acclaim for the way it tackled those problems and for the work it has done. There is nothing in the order about the continuation of that work and care in the community. There is nothing in the order about how to continue valuable educational work such as the special educational needs work, which may well need to be considered in detail if it is to continue.
Cleveland is a county council. I repeat that government Ministers have on many occasions said that Cleveland is unpopular. Surely even Her Majesty's Government can find some approval and praise for a county which next September will offer nursery education to all children at the appropriate age whose parents wish for it. It is a county which has the full backing and support of industrialists and commercial interests within its boundaries because of the work it has done in economic development.
Joint co-operation between groups of local authorities is surely a form of county government but under another name and run in a different way. Direct accountability is surely preferable. The proposals in the order will lead to unfair and unjust treatment of the staff concerned.
We have not had an opportunity to study and consider, as your Lordships did in the case of Scotland and Wales, the details of the continuing arrangements for the provision of services. We do not know whether the issue of the proposed abolition of Cleveland is part of a pattern or whether it is part of a particular attempt to remove certain councils and not others.
I believe that your Lordships should support the amendment and the need for proper information on these issues. It is critically important that the constitutional concerns raised as a result of the amendment are considered in detail. I understand that in a matter of two or three weeks the conditions and terms of severance and pay for staff will be debated and put before the other place by the Government. Surely, it would be more appropriate to consider then whether the proposed reorganisation of Cleveland is logical and acceptable rather than in a vacuum if the order is taken now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, public opinion has not come down clearly in favour of the proposed changes. Cleveland was one of the early township authorities where the public was consulted. It was not consulted in the same manner as members of the public were in later commission proposals. The commission had to be reminded through the courts, and the Secretary of State had to be reminded by the action taken by my own county, Lancashire, and Derbyshire, that the whole raison d'être of setting up the Local

935
Government Commission was that there should be a study as to whether people in the local community wanted any change at all. That was not explicitly put to the people of Cleveland.
We have a failure to create genuine, legal new authorities within the procedure proposed under the order now before us. It is premature on all these grounds to allow the order. The amendment should be supported. It is better to take time and for the result to be sound rather than to accept an argument that because there would be delay it is therefore necessary to act in haste. I do not believe that acting in haste is in the interests of good government structure for local government and the future of the Cleveland area.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendment so convincingly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, and also in support of the very powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who approached this matter from a very different position and point of view.
I shall not hide from your Lordships that, were it the custom of the House to vote against statutory instruments, I would want to do so this evening. In that respect, I regard the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, as second best. I ask the noble Viscount for a reply early in his response to the debate. As I recall, in our last Session there was primary legislation as regards local government in Scotland and Wales. They were provided with an opportunity for a full debate in this House with the possibility of amending the Government's proposals. Why is it that what was right for Scotland and Wales is thought by the Government to be wrong for England? There must be some reason other than the amount of parliamentary time that such legislation would absorb. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain that.
I am sure that we all speak as a result of personal experience. My interest in the order stems from the fact that I was the Member of Parliament for Stockton-on-Tees and then for Stockton, North from 1962 to 1983. During that time I became convinced that Stockton was part of a single conurbation on both sides of the Tees based on either travel-to-work patterns or the spread of the built environment. I also came to take the view that even at a time of relative prosperity we would have a greater prospect of attracting inward investment if we stood together. If we were fragmented, as we were, into separate boroughs, I believed that we should not be able to convince those who might consider investing in Teesside that the proposition was attractive to them.
I recognise—I am sure that we all recognise—the importance of strong local loyalties. I should add, however, that those loyalties are often not to a borough, which is an artificial creation, but to an estate or district. Notwithstanding that, again it is the case that from time to time Members of Parliament, of which I was one, and local councillors will argue strongly on behalf of those whom they have been elected to represent for the time
936
being. However, I have to put it to the House and the Minister that there are times when it is important to rise above those strong but sentimental associations and to consider what is best by the most objective criteria that one can find.
I said that after I was elected to represent Stockton-on-Tees I came to believe that there was a unity which covered both sides of the Tees. However, my own views as a Member of Parliament were not significant when it came to local government reform. In 1968 such was the leadership given by local government and such was the recognition of our interest in standing together in Teesside that a voluntary amalgamation of the existing boroughs took place to create the borough of Teesside. Middlesbrough was the largest borough to come into Teesside; Stockton was the oldest; Billingham had the highest rateable value, Thornaby, Eston and Redcar were smaller in one way or another, yet those six boroughs came together to comprise what was known as the county borough of Teesside. Hartlepool stood aside because it has been extremely independent ever since it was shelled by the Germans early in the First World War. I am not proposing—nor, I think, would the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft—that Hartlepool should be clamped together with the rest of Teesside in a single borough. For that reason, we accept that there must be change in the status quo.
However, having said that, what I believe that the Government should have brought before the House today is not a proposal to go back beyond 1968, but a proposal to revert to the borough of Teesside, which served the area so well until 1974. It was not Teesside to which the people of Teesside were opposed. They wanted to retain it, but were forced into a shotgun marriage in 1974 when, as I remember plainly, they were told by the then Minister of State at the Department of the Environment that, unless they came together in a new county, adopting a name of which nobody had heard and obliging Hartlepool to join, Teesside would be divided along the Tees with part reverting to Yorkshire and part going to County Durham.
I stress again what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft: this is not a proposal simply to dismember an unpopular county council. It is a proposal to go back beyond that (with some minor amendments) to the state which prevailed before 1968. I think that that is the wrong solution and that in due course the people of Teesside will be the victims of it.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to both Avon and Humberside. I can see—although I am an outsider and would not choose to vouchsafe a final view—the argument that the creations of both Avon and Humberside were the wrong solutions. Avon, Humberside and Cleveland are not all of a kind. I greatly regret the fact that the Government appear to believe that they are.
The Government have made a decision on, I believe, the basis of a botched job by the Local Government Commission. I cannot recall any local government reorganisation which has been approached in such an unprofessional way. The methodology in discovering

937
local opinion is unconvincing and the weight that was given to the survey of local opinion is disproportionate. This is government by MORI poll and it cannot be right.
The report, which is badly ordered—it is not easy to find one's way through it—refers to the survey that was conducted 18 months ago by MORI. Page 1 of the introduction to the second part of the published document states that the basis of the survey was,
"a stratified quota sample of 1,235 adults",
interviewed across the four districts. The next page then states that, of those surveyed, only 10 per cent.,
"say that they know at least a fair amount about the subject".
It would be ridiculous if it were not tragic that the views of only 10 per cent. of the survey sample of 1,235 people —those who said that they know at least a fair amount about the subject—comprise the basis upon which the commission made its recommendation and on which the Government decided to place the order before the House.
I do not complain about the professionalism of the MORI organisation nor about the good faith of its clients, but I do not believe that such a survey should be the principal reason for concluding that the opinion of people in Cleveland is in favour of the order. The Association of County Councils has come up with its own briefing on public opinion in Cleveland. I do not intend to go through its detailed arguments now, but what I find interesting is that, however one approaches the survey data, the conclusion is always the same—that it is a quite inadequate basis upon which to reach a conclusion about the future of the area.
I have said that, if it were the custom of the House and if this course of action were open to me, I would have hoped to vote against the order. I have also said—I am sure that the Minister will reply to this—that I wish that we were dealing with primary legislation. However, we are not allowed that, although it was allowed for Scotland and for Wales.
In order to place my views fairly before the House, I should add that I am deeply sceptical about almost all local government reorganisation. In my experience, it increases the costs; it fails to deliver the benefits claimed for it and it makes more enemies than friends. It may achieve an initial popularity, but that soon gives way to discontent. I believe that both the transitional costs and the annual costs that will result from the order will be higher than those that the Government envisaged when they considered the commission's report. I also believe that, for a number of reasons concerned with the size of the boroughs which it is intended to create, in the long run services will be worse rather than better. I greatly regret it, but I believe that the order is bad news for the people of Cleveland and a model of how local government change should not be brought about.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, the amendment, moved so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, offers us an opportunity to ensure that everything is right with the local government proposals and their implementation in Cleveland. How much better that would be than for implementation to be imposed while
938
serious doubts linger. Doubts linger about whether the transfer of services has been secured properly; whether the absence of true shadow authorities can guarantee to the more than 20,000 staff who work for Cleveland County Council that they will be treated as on a level playing field with their 6,000 colleagues who work for the district councils; whether the proposals fit into the pattern proposed for English counties as a whole; and whether the courts finally agree that the commission's recommendations have been arrived at safely and correctly.
Perhaps I may turn to specific service issues. The amendment lists, as examples, community care, special education, children's services and emergency planning. Noble Lords have already referred to the dangers of leaving such services inadequately secured. It cannot be right that such vital services are left to voluntary joint arrangements to secure their delivery in Cleveland. Of course that applies also to other counties.
I have received a number of letters on this issue. They all support the Cleveland option. Not one supported the district options, except of course those from the district councils. I shall quote from a letter I received today from the NSPCC. It states:
"The NSPCC is extremely concerned that the Order gives broad powers which may be used to amend key pieces of primary legislation, without reference to what way they will be affected. It is imperative that the government issues detailed guidance to the new unitary authorities ensuring that they recognise and properly fulfil their responsibilities as set out under the Children Act 1989, and comply with the Working Together guidance.… transfer of county responsibility for children's services is assumed to be covered by the general "catch-all" clause: Clause 3(1). The Society believes that this transfer provision, by itself, is a wholly inadequate safeguard of child protection services and procedures".
I read that as an example of numerous letters I have received.
A number of services are not mentioned in the amendment, such as trading standards, structure planning, strategic transport planning, libraries, archaeological services and archives. I am especially interested in archives. The general problems likely to face that service have been debated already, and great concern was shown in our debate last July. For structure planning, which is essential in a conurbation such as Cleveland, the order makes no reference to any future joint action by the four districts to review the current plan.
Transport planning, including the power to subsidise certain services which cross the whole county, is not mentioned. Both are consigned to the goodwill of the district councils to co-operate, subject only to the Secretary of State's reserve power if or when co-operation breaks down. Frankly, that means that he can intervene only when it is too late.
For trading standards, both business and consumer interests require consistency across such a small area, which is basically a single shopping area and a single economic unit. In the case of that statutory function, the districts have virtually no plans for a joint working arrangement.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment seeks to enable your Lordships to reach a view on the Cleveland order in the light of the Government's decisions for all counties.

939
Intriguingly, that now appears to be the approach preferred by the Government themselves, except, it seems, for Cleveland, because a Minister was quoted recently as saying at a local government conference that before the commission's proposals were put to Parliament he wanted to bring some coherence to the final outcome,
"so that the man from Mars can see a rationale".
It is not the "man from Mars", but the Members of the House who have the responsibility for approving decisions on the commission's proposals, and it is we who need to see a rationale.
There is then the question of the judicial review. Counsel have advised the county council that it has grounds for appeal against the High Court's rejection of its application. In any case, your Lordships will be aware that severe criticisms were made by the High Court of the commission's procedures in the Cleveland review, and particularly of the public consultation. Every noble Lord who has spoken so far has mentioned that. As was made clear by the Government in an Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, the method of public consultation took a fundamentally different and much fairer form in all counties reviewed later. The courts have yet to give their final view on that and other issues.
Since Teesside was created in 1968—that is the area in which I live—it has had a unified voice; has been pretty successful in attracting outside investment; and has built something of its own identity. I am fearful that, however well-managed and well-run they are, much of that will be lost with the breaking down into the four districts. The amendment offers us an opportunity to ensure that all aspects of the Cleveland order are safe and satisfactory. I intend to support it.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: I wish to support my noble friend Lord Bancroft, who has so competently introduced his amendment to the order. I share his view that Cleveland is not being treated consistently with the other counties reviewed later by the commission. I believe that I am the first speaker who has no association with Cleveland other than a long-standing personal friendship with the one-time Member for Stockton and a great admiration and respect for my old permanent secretary at the Department of the Environment (my noble friend Lord Bancroft), who guided me so well in my early days in my ministerial duties. However, I have over 50 years' association with shire counties.
It would be wrong to change local government without solid local public support. The commission did not issue the "household leaflet" setting out the options and projected costs, and the MORI poll that the commission did undertake failed to find majority support across the whole county. A more recent MORI poll, modelled on the commission's household leaflet, found less than 50 per cent. support for any form of change. There is no solid support in public opinion for the structure contained in the order.
940
I have the experience of two county council reorganisations in 1965 and 1974. I have also had some experience of the problems of local government areas which are too small. Almost 50 years ago, in 1946, I was first elected to the Soke of Peterborough County Council. It was an anachronism - only Rutland had a smaller population. We could not offer the range or quality of services available in today's counties, and we had the new experience of the joint board in education—the largest spending department, with no accountability to elected authorities. It was able to precept on the two authorities concerned, and there were no rights of criticism or questioning available to the elected members who were not members of the joint board. Despite that criticism, the board did a good job for Peterborough and the villages around, though it was undemocratic and unaccountable. Yet this order proposes four unitary authorities, with three of the four falling below the commission's indicative figure of 150,000, and indeed one has fewer than 100,000 residents. That could lead to some joint provisions.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, reminded us in her forceful speech, the staff placements will create problems, with the four continuing authorities making it difficult to see the potential transfer rights so far as concerns county staff. Even worse, we are being asked to approve the order before the county's legal challenge is completed.
There is real anxiety in Cleveland about the provision of essential services, such as community care for the elderly, disabled people and those with mental health problems, not to mention the full range of child care services, child protection and juvenile justice. It seems to me that there has been no proper consideration of the future of these essential services when the county is split into smaller units. Nor has any proper provision been made in the order to ensure these services.
My noble friend's amendment seeks only to delay the introduction of the order until proper consideration can be given to the adequate provision of essential services and until the county proceedings in connection with the application for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal is completed. We are asking that the House does not reach a decision in isolation on the future of local government in Cleveland.
The final batch of recommendations to the commission were presented this month. The Secretary of State is to reach a decision on these amendments six weeks later. So, if the amendment is carried tonight, the House will be able to have before it the overall shape of the Government's intentions as regards local government throughout England. That will be the time to consider the Cleveland order—when the other orders are before us. I support the amendment.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I have not worked in Cleveland but I have visited the county. Therefore, I wish to ask my noble friend some questions rather than making statements. Is he satisfied that the people of Cleveland want this reorganisation? Other noble Lords have mentioned the MORI poll and asked whether all the forms were completed. In Oxfordshire, where I live,

941
it was discovered that a number of people did not receive the forms, while others did not answer them. As a result, three residents of Oxford and I wrote to The Times and visited various people. Several people then telephoned to ask for forms, which they completed. As a result of knowing what was going on, what they could do and what they could say, there was an overall vote for the status quo. Therefore, is the Minister really convinced that the people of Cleveland knew what they were voting for and can he say how many did not vote?
I turn to consultation. Were the people of Cleveland consulted about the costs? Is it fully realised that if there are four local authorities instead of one county council there will be four chief executives, four directors of education, four directors of social services and so forth? They will not be paid as much as the county council now pays its officers, but it will be more expensive for the additional officers in four authorities to administer Acts of Parliament. Furthermore, I suggest with the greatest diffidence that the quality of the chief officers is likely to be poorer because those posts will command lower salaries, with fewer responsibilities. Will that attract the kind of people who ought to be running local government?
I look back—certainly a long way—to the great giants of education such as Mr. Brockington of Leicestershire and Mr. Clegg of North Yorkshire. Will we find similar people to run the education services in smaller authorities? We must bear in mind that one of the authorities will be the smallest in the country. Will it really attract an outstanding person? I should like to think so, but is it possible? Should that not be realised?
Has the health authority been consulted about the matter? I understand that the three divisions of the health authority have been amalgamated into one, which would have been coterminous with Cleveland. Some time ago I spoke to members of Coopers, Lybrand, Deloit. They told me that in their opinion, if we are to receive good mental health services and community care, the health authority should be coterminous with the local authority. Having been a director of social services, I know that to be true.
The health authorities have been amalgamated into one authority, but we are being asked to divide Cleveland into four authorities. That means that those in the health authority must consult with four different people. Admittedly the time and expense will be met by the health authority. However, it does not make for good administration when the health authority must work with four different authorities instead of one consistent authority. Therefore, I ask whether those in the health authorities have been consulted and, if so, what their views are.
Do my noble friend the Minister and the people of Cleveland appreciate that, as regards child care, four different authorities will administer the service and instead of one child protection team there will be four? Is it realised that no one small authority, in particular the smallest, will be able to run the services necessary for its area? That applies also to services for the elderly and handicapped. Perhaps I may give an example. I do not believe that any single authority will have in its area sufficient Alzheimer cases to set up an Alzheimer
942
hostel. Therefore, it will be necessary for the four health authorities to combine together to create an overall management team.
Is it appreciated that when the London boroughs were broken up there was no overall co-ordinating authority? I suggest that our road and traffic problems would have been different had there been such an authority. An overall co-ordinating team for the four authorities will be costly and time consuming. An overall management committee must be set up in order to obtain a common policy throughout Cleveland and ensure the overall use of facilities. No one small authority will be able to set up all the facilities that it will need in its area. I hope that there has been consultation on that issue.
I am bound to ask whether the staff of the authorities and the various chief officers have been consulted. Have they been asked to write a report about what will happen if Cleveland is broken up into four authorities? I submit that as regards chief officers it is theirs but to do or die—very often to die, and in particular in this case—but I wonder whether the chief officers and officers of the county council and district councils have been consulted.
I turn now to the voluntary organisations, which have already been mentioned. In relation to social services and Part III of the Education Act, local authorities are extremely dependent upon voluntary organisations—the NSPCC, Barnardos, the National Children's Homes, the Children's Society and many others. Those organisations have made representations to me and, indeed, I am involved with Barnardos and the NSPCC. They tell me that they will have to consult with four authorities rather than one. That will be extremely time-consuming. All voluntary organisations have difficulty in raising money in order to run their services. This proposal will necessitate more staff to co-ordinate and co-operate with four authorities rather than one.
I do not believe that the people of Cleveland realise that they would receive better services from one authority rather than four authorities, because one authority would mean consistent, co-ordinated policies throughout the county. With regard to local feeling, it has been said that we want the services to be near the citizens. They are near the citizens. In Cleveland there are 20 local social services offices. The people in those areas know exactly where to go and on whom they are dependent. Sadly, there are many divorces and separations but the people know that they can go to their local office. They know the staff there and the staff know the people who need help.
In Oxfordshire, we had local offices and there was never any complaint that the citizens did not know where to go for help. That is extremely important in relation to work with the elderly and the handicapped. The offices were local and the people knew exactly where to go. I contend that the citizens in Cleveland now know where to go for help.
For those reasons, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft.
8.11 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Bancroft in his amendment to the Cleveland

943
(Structural Change) Order 1994. It seems to me that it is not just Cleveland. It would appear that the Government are flying a kite to see what feeling there is in the country for the changes proposed for this and, so it seems in the near future, other local authorities.
I listened with great care to what the noble Viscount said with regard to the case which is to go before the Court of Appeal; but I am still puzzled. How can it be that an appeal waiting to be heard in the courts—and I understand that no date has yet been set—is pre-empted by Parliament? On the face of it, it would appear to be quite unconstitutional. Surely the Government should not be passing this structural change before the oral hearing has been agreed. It could seem improper to pre-empt that resolution. It may even cause embarrassment to the Government. I am sure that the noble Viscount does not wish to do that.
I would be very grateful to be told how the structural change order is supposed to have the support of public opinion. When I spoke in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Cornwallis on 30th March 1994, I emphasised the need to carry the opinion of the parish councils. In the case of my own parish council, it felt that it had been brushed off. After all, parish councils are concerned with local matters and know how people feel. I read with pleasure that Sir John Banham has recently come round to a similar view. Perhaps I may hope that this evening the noble Viscount in his reply will reach similar conclusions. Will he ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to think again? The Association of County Councils reports that the present proposal is supported by only three persons in 10.
There are many other things which might be said. I am greatly concerned that minuscule unitary authorities will be incapable of carrying out their duties in the spheres of social services, health and education. I stress in particular the special needs of education and community care. I doubt whether the proposed unitary authorities will have the ability to implement the Children Act 1989 in full. That is also of concern to the NSPCC.
In view of all the anxieties expressed this evening on all sides of the House, I beg the noble Viscount to bring the debate to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and to ask him to think again.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the decision to create four unitary authorities in Cleveland naturally comes as a great relief to the district authorities. They provide no less than 20 per cent. of the spending of the county, measured for the council tax payer, and would like to spread their responsibility to cover the 80 per cent. balance now spent by the county.
Much has been said about the degree to which the order commands public support. But now MORI polls seem to indicate that there is no majority support for any change, and considerable doubt has been expressed about the validity of the consultation exercise. Forty thousand leaflets were printed for 220,000 households,
944
only 12,500 of which were returned to the commission, which represents 3 per cent. of the potential electorate. Against that 3 per cent. support, I should like to record the depth of opposition to the proposals and the hope that the Government will look kindly on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, especially in view of the support he has received this evening.
I have the honour to be Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant for Cleveland although I try to speak not as an advocate for one side or the other but from personal experience. The proposal has aroused much anxiety and has promoted deep divisions in the county. It was somewhat predictable that local authorities would campaign vigorously for their own causes. But it cannot have been expected that completely independent organisations—many traditional allies of the Government—would campaign so vigorously against the proposal. It is with their views that I should like to deal.
For example, the editor of the local evening paper has argued:
"Teesside does not need three separate councils, three separate teams of officials and directorates. It needs what it has always needed; one council, one strong voice to make Teesside a force to be noticed by our government, by the European Commission and by governments and regions worldwide. Teesside needs one identity to be projected, proudly and confidently by its residents, its business community, its council and its MPs".
The Confederation of British Industry, the chamber of commerce and the small business club have collectively gone on record as saying:
"The Local Government Commission not only failed to give serious consideration to the views of our separate organisations but mis-quoted the views of unrepresentative organisations in support of their proposals. Extra costs incurred in running the local government service disadvantage the community. Prosperity … can be fostered by the single voice of a united Teesside—fragmentation is unhelpful".
Many other organisations and providers of services have expressed concern in a wide variety of forms. They fear that those services will become either more difficult or more expensive to maintain, or will be reduced. It is one thing for the recipient of services to say that he would feel happier if those services were to be provided by his most local council but he will not blame himself should the change lead to either a fall-off in those services or a greater expense in providing them, which-creates a higher council tax.
Sir John Banham says—the remarks were made in his now famous address to the ACC conference on 9th November—that there is no proof that smaller authorities will be better placed to deliver services than a large authority and that the experiment, which can provide no evidence of improvement, will cost billions of pounds of public money.
The following bodies or providers of services have either opposed or expressed strong concern in relation to the proposal for the four-district solution: the Association of County Councils, Age Concern, the Association for All Speech Impaired Children, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the British Association of Social Workers (Cleveland branch), the Carers National Association (Cleveland branch), the CBI (Northern Region), the CBI (Teesside), the

945
Cleveland Co-operative Development Agency, the Cleveland County Voluntary Sector Partnership, the Cleveland Deaf Children's Society, the Cleveland Disability Forum, the Cleveland Local Medical Committee, the Cleveland Playgroup Network, the Cleveland Unit, Middlesbrough General Hospital, the Cleveland Spastics Society, the Council for National Parks, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, the Durham Diocesan Board of Education, English Heritage and Information North. There are many of them; I have only mentioned 10 or 12.
On the next page of my notes I have a further list of 40 organisations. I shall mention about 10 rather than take up too much of your Lordships' time. For example, there is the Anti-Counterfeiting Group which I never knew existed but which apparently is quite important. Others include the chief inspector of social services, the Consumer Credit Trade Association, the Countryside Commission, the Emergency Planning Society—which is most important for us—the Library Association, the National Children's Bureau, the National Deaf Children's Society and the Cleveland Youth Association. I shall not mention the remaining 30. However, I should point out that the NSPCC is extremely concerned regarding child protection services. My list contains 91 different organisations; I have referred only to about 20 or so.
I have also received letters from private individuals asking why there has to be a change, but I have received no letters asking for a return to the original counties or asking for change. I ask the Government: what is the most important view to heed—that of the providers of services and the creators of wealth or that of the recipients who know not from where their services come but just that they arrive?
There is no evidence that the county is unpopular with the people living there. There is none of the antipathy evidenced in Avon and Humberside. After nearly a generation of the county, most people under 40 have known nothing else. Many of us are proud of our county and of the dramatic achievements of the past few years. Indeed, only yesterday I attended a conference of the St. John Ambulance. In view of the enthusiasm, pride and progress reported there, no one who was present could say that Cleveland is unpopular. A number of other letters support the retention of the county with the identity that has been fostered and of which we are now proud without commenting on the four-district proposal.
Success will now depend on co-operation and agreement among the four district authorities in activities such as emergency planning—we are a county of severe industrial hazard—police, fire, libraries, archives, trading standards and children's services, just to mention a few. There is great danger that the fragmentation of services among four small districts could lead to services being less stable, less accountable and less effective than would be the case with direct responsibility, and all at much greater cost. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before I turn to the merits of the order, perhaps I may deal with two
946
procedural matters which have been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Bancroft and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. There is no questioning the fact that your Lordships would have been fully entitled to vote against an order laid under the local government Act. I believe that that was sufficiently established in a debate which took place in this House a short time ago in which your Lordships accepted a resolution that this Chamber had unfettered freedom to vote against subordinate legislation.
My noble friend has framed his amendment in order to obviate any direct challenge; but, in effect, it is a direct challenge. It is possible that it would have been preferable to have thrown out the order right away rather than consigning it, in the way suggested by the amendment, to the Greek calends. I shall postpone dealing with the other question which concerns the relationship towards the proceedings in the Supreme Court.
As to the merits, I approach the subject with considerable diffidence. It is over 30 years since I was Member of Parliament for the Teesside constituency of Middlesbrough. Perhaps I should point out that, at that time, Middlesbrough was a county borough as it is proposed to reconstitute it under the order. I, for one, greatly admired the way that it was run as a local authority. I should add that it was under the control of a party which was different from my own; in fact, it was the party opposite to mine.
In that connection, I also had some relationship to the North Riding County Council. Although I ceased over 30 years ago to have a parliamentary connection with the area, I should say that we lived in the neighbourhood and I tried to keep in close touch as much as possible. I was left in no doubt that the construction of the Cleveland county in 1974 was an unpopular measure, and not only because the first proposal that was made managed to put Middlesbrough into the County of Durham. At that time, Middlesbrough was in Yorkshire and the latter would not recruit to its cricket team anyone who was not born in the county; and Durham was a minor county. Therefore, every father in Middlesbrough was horrified to find that his son, whom he had looked forward to see playing at Bramall Lane, was immediately disfranchised. However, that was not the only reason and the proposal was rapidly dropped.
Noble Lords have heard many detailed reasons in favour of the amendment this evening. Indeed, I am the first to oppose the amendment and to say that I am wholeheartedly in favour of the order proposed. However, before I come to that aspect of the matter, perhaps I may add the following. Those who have spoken before me, especially those who have represented the area in various capacities—such as the noble Lords, Lord Gisborough and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank—predisposed me in every way in favour of the amendment. In addition, a friend and former supporter of mine wrote to me to enlist my interest in favour of the amendment. It was only when I looked into the matter that I came beyond any question to the conviction that the order proposed by the Government is correct.

947
Your Lordships have heard detailed arguments covering the whole ground. Certainly, as the first to support the order, it would be quite inappropriate—and, indeed, would take far too long—for me to attempt to deal with all those arguments. But at least I can say that there is not one of the arguments advanced today before the House which was not advanced to the commission; there is not one of those arguments that was not subsequently advanced to the Government; and, finally, there is not one that was not advanced in the other place on 11th January. Yet, the commission has recommended the order, the Government are propounding it to your Lordships and the other place approved it by a large majority. The spokesman for the Social Democrats was in favour of the order.
Without trying to cover all the ground that has been put forward in detail, I hope I may put forward one or two grounds in favour of this order. In the first place, it constitutes unitary authorities. Although the initial proposal of Cleveland County Council was for a two-tier authority, today no noble Lord in your Lordships' House has contradicted the theme that there is much to be said for a unitary authority in that the citizen can then look—for almost all the services that are provided for him—to one set of officials and representatives.
The second thing is that what is proposed is much closer to the people than what was proposed by the amendment and by the propaganda that we have had from Cleveland County Council and from the County Councils Association. So far no one has mentioned the word "subsidiarity". It was mentioned with force by the spokesman for the Social Democrats in the other place. Subsidiarity aroused considerable enthusiasm when the Prime Minister succeeded in getting it written into the Maastricht Treaty. I know the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, only has to hear Maastricht mentioned and he reacts in the other direction.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, you are tempting him!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness is on my side or not. But certainly subsidiarity has been gaining in esteem since then, and subsidiarity, like charity, begins at home. Therefore as soon as we can move the decision making to the person affected by the decision without damaging the services that will be vouchsafed, the better it will be.
I now turn to the other two questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, asked a crucial question and it was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. How far do the people of Cleveland want what is proposed? The statistics, like most statistics, have been juggled considerably this evening but they are analysed with great clarity on page 23 of the report of the judgment of the Divisional Court. It seems beyond question that the people of Cleveland have been consulted and are in favour of what is proposed.
There is another thing. Members of Parliament are very close to their constituents and regard it as their duty to voice, so far as they may, the views and interests of their constituents. The interesting thing is that of the six Teesside MPs who are covered by this order—I include
948
Hartlepool—four are in favour of the order. They are not all Government supporters: two of the four are Conservatives and two are distinguished Labour MPs. They spoke in the other place with great clarity and with great cogency and their speeches well deserve the closest attention.
The other question that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, raised—as did, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and other noble Lords—is the question of costs. Again that was carefully gone into by the commission. It was very carefully considered by the Divisional Court and what seemed plain is that although there are inevitably additional costs in a transition, in three years' time those costs will be overtaken by the savings—I hope the noble Viscount will give the figures—and the further ongoing savings.
I come finally to the question of proceedings in the Supreme Court. So far they have only been in the High Court. The county council brought an application for judicial review. That was rejected. It then applied in writing for leave to appeal and the Court of Appeal refused that. It has now applied for an oral hearing of its application but no date has been fixed for it. Therefore, at the moment there are no proceedings at all before the High Court. If we wait on the High Court the proceedings can be spun out in ways that I am afraid lawyers are all too familiar with, until we do not get any effective and smooth reorganisation in Cleveland.
What my noble friend Lord Bancroft is really proposing—he is one of the most distinguished public servants of our time and carries great weight—is what used to be called the centipede syndrome. Until every 100 feet have been put forward, no one may be ventured in advance. If we have that, we shall certainly not have a profitable organisation of local government in Cleveland. Opinion there is unquestionably divided although, as I have suggested, it is preponderantly in favour of the order. It is far better that this propaganda and counter-propaganda be brought now to an end and the various local authorities allowed to get on with their reorganisation.
8.38 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I must confess, first of-all, that I am tremendously relieved to be standing in the shadow of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because it was my great fear that I would be the only one to support the order and speak against the amendment. But the noble and learned Lord has done a wonderful job and has covered areas which I am not competent to cover, and that has given me tremendous heart.
It seems to me, listening to noble Lords and to everyone who has spoken in favour of the amendment, that there is a questioning of the whole basis of the reorganisation, and that is what, in my opinion, lies at the heart of the matter. Instead of saying, "Oh, yes, we are in favour of reorganisation but we are not in favour of this particular one", it is really a question of saying, "Look it is all right if it is some other county which goes but let it not be my county.".

949
I do not know the county. I have no interest to declare other than 15 years as a district councillor. As a district councillor I know that delay—that little five-letter word —is dreadful for district councillors. You cannot plan anything; you cannot do anything; you are in limbo; and you do not know what is coming next. To put this whole process back and create delay and uncertainty is extremely unfair.
I have heard a great deal about how unfair and inaccurate the polls were. Although all the polls point to one conclusion, apparently they were all incorrect. If they are so inaccurate would it not have been better to have conducted other polls to bring out a different result? We have always had this problem. We say that only 5 per cent. of the people vote or only 10 per cent. of the people vote. You cannot force people to vote, although there are countries in the European Union which have laws to make people vote. Only 55 per cent. of the people vote for Parliament, but we abide by the result. We say that it is your right not to vote as much as it is your privilege to be able to vote.
However many people voted, a far larger number voted in favour of the reorganisation than voted against it. That is a fact which is staring everybody in the face. Perhaps it would have been better if there had been parallel statistics and other polls which pointed in another direction, but we do not have those.
We have also heard a great deal about what is going to happen to the staff. The four districts have committed themselves to ensuring that all staff who want to do so can transfer to the new authorities. That is a fact. Also, your Lordships may be interested to note that most of the senior staff from the county council have already left, either to go to the new districts, to neighbouring county councils or to other councils. It is almost accepted as a fait accompli that the four districts will come into being.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, that the delay need not be a long one and may be a few weeks. That is an impossibility. If the change is delayed the process will have to start running again. It could never be a matter of a few weeks. The delay will be far longer than that.
Change is always painful, especially if it involves the loss of a particular level of authority. We have seen that time and time again. The order has come to us at a point where all the steps have been taken. I hope that your Lordships will not delay the order and will proceed with it.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking in the gap. I had not expected to be able to speak tonight, and that is why my name is not on the list of speakers. I shall be as brief as I possibly can.
I find myself in the unusual position of supporting the Government tonight. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, I thought that I would be the only one. But I shall support the Government tonight and vote against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, if he puts it to the vote. I am opposed to the amendment, first, because I believe in unitary authorities and, secondly,
950
because I believe that the delay which would be caused if the amendment were adopted would not be good for local government in Cleveland.
If the amendment were carried a number of things would happen. First, preparations in Cleveland which have been under way for some considerable time would have to be put on hold. There would be no further service development work due to the uncertainty of the situation. Staff morale would certainly be adversely affected. Staff retention and recruitment would be increasingly difficult for the county council and the new authorities. Furthermore, if the amendment were passed there would inevitably be similar amendments to other orders, delaying the whole process.
A great deal has been said this evening about the public opinion polls which have been taken. Much complaint has been made against them. My guess is that if instead of 75 per cent. of the people polled being in favour of unitary authorities they had been in favour of the continuation of Cleveland County Council, far from being criticised the polls would have been lauded in the debate tonight. We can only take note of the polls that we have.
I am a county borough man. I should like to refute some of the arguments which have been raised against the unitary authority principle. For example, we are told that the NSPCC is very anxious about the future operation of children's services. In my experience, the children's services are run extremely well by the county boroughs, and very often much better than by county councils. The same applies to a range of other services, including libraries, about which we have heard tonight.
Furthermore, the question of the costs of the new authorities—which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—has been dealt with. The transitional costs—which may well amount to between £13 and £18 million—will be saved with the new structures. It is estimated that £6 million to £11 million per annum will be saved in administrative costs. Therefore, there is a pay-back period of between two and three years, and there will be ongoing savings for the people of the area from then on.
I have almost exhausted my time. Perhaps I should say that I have an interest as a vice-president of the ADC. Nevertheless, my interest in this subject goes back a very long time. I merely want to repeat that I am in favour of the government order. If the matter is put to a vote I fear that I shall vote against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if ever it were apposite to say that I would not start from here, tonight must be the night. Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest, if it is an interest. That is for noble Lords to judge by the time I come to the end of my speech. I am a member of a unitary authority.
In my view the greatest tragedy is that the whole process has gone so badly wrong. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that it would have been so much better had we started with a consideration of the functions of local government and also considered the question of tax raising. However, we have been diverted

951
on to matters of structure, which have tended to divide rather than unite noble Lords, who clearly have a passion for good local government, even if our analyses of how that is to be delivered may differ.
It is also a tragedy that the review must have set back further consideration of the structure of local government by some 15 or 20 years. I say that in the context of the debate about regional government. I am a supporter of regional government. I accept that there is a need for much discussion as to precisely how it should be organised and what its functions should be, but I believe that there are many services which should be taken from central government and which would be better delivered at regional level. That would be a better context for the delivery of truly local services.
The language used during the debate—I do not refer to tonight's debate but to that outside the House—has often been unfortunate. One such occasion was the reference to an "early win", to which the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, drew attention.
Thinking increasingly about tonight's debate, I have found myself in a dilemma. We do not have an option to vote for the status quo. Indeed no one seems to want that. The advocates of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, seem to be supporters of the Teesside-Hartlepool option. That option is not before us. I would have some reservations on that, although I understand the anxiety for Teesside about the disparity and size of the two authorities, which might make one authority the poor relation. Those who seem to argue that we should support the amendment, however they interpret its effect, are advocates of that solution. But many of their arguments against four unitary authorities seem equally to be arguments against a solution which would lead to one small unitary authority and one bigger authority.
I have talked about the problems of the review process. I believe that the Government have wasted such opportunities. It may not be possible to please all the people all the time, but the procedure seems to be on the verge of displeasing all the people all the time. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend, Lord Rodgers—for this evening, he may be a friend but not an ally—that my colleagues in local government in Scotland and Wales have said, "At least you have had the review; you have had the commission. There has been opportunity for local people to put the local case, however badly organised that opportunity has been". The reorganisation for Scotland and Wales was kept entirely within this building. It was not a matter for local debate.
Reference has been made to cost. Of course there have been enormous costs simply to reach this point. They include the hidden cost of the hours spent working on the matter, which will never be recovered. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to extra cost as a result of there being four authorities. I do not believe that there will be much duplication. At the point of delivery of service there should not be duplication. The noble Baroness's concern related to the threat to attracting good quality officers. The greater threat is the centralisation of service and decision making within central government.
952
The Opposition cannot set the agenda. We have to respond to this order. However, I do not regard it as a template or a precedent for future orders. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon in his analysis: that the amendment is opposition to the order in another form.
As regards strategic services, I am no lover of joint working, joint authorities or joint arrangements; those are all slightly different one from the other. They can be second best. My anxieties are for reasons of accountability and clarity. However, I believe that the issues raised in the amendment were addressed by the commission and the boroughs. In fact the Teesside-Hartlepool option would not avoid the need for joint arrangements. I much prefer the authorities involved to co-operate and work out their own methods of arrangements rather than having the Government impose the model from above by means of an order. I include economic development; it is an important issue raised by noble Lords.
Coterminosity is generally not on offer. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, referred to the health service. But it is rare for there to be coterminosity between health and social services. Of the services to which reference has been made, care in the community (to take but one example) involves a great range of services. Of course, I bow to the great experience of the noble Baroness. It probably outweighs that of the remainder of us put together. However, I believe that many different services are delivered through care in the community, with many different client groups. Different numbers make up the critical mass for the good delivery of those services.
With regard to emergency planning, there has to be co-operation and careful working across boundaries. One cannot know whether a disaster will occur in the middle of an administrative area or on its border. Finally, perhaps I may refer to special needs, one of the many strategic services. I understand that the delivery of special needs services is already predominantly based in the districts.
I do not minimise the levels of stress and the problems for local authority staff who are subjected to what is taking place at present. However, the Minister has given us certain reassurances. I am persuaded that, though the package could be improved and one would wish to see it improved, it is less than that recommended by the staff commission and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government may be prepared to reconsider the scheme. Nevertheless, a good deal of progress has been made. If we are ever to proceed to unitary government, on balance the position is as satisfactory as one might reasonably expect. I agree with other noble Lords that one cannot organise everything perfectly before taking the final decision.
On judicial review, it is not as though the matter has not already been considered at length by the courts. There are almost always further avenues of appeal.
The subject of polls inevitably concerned noble Lords. I noted that the latest poll—it was organised by the county —gave what one might call an answer (it may not be the right term; it is a shorthand description) which resulted in 50 per cent. support for four unitary

953
authorities, and 29 per cent. support for two unitary authorities. Many other figures could be used. On balance one has to treat the polls as one factor in judging the dependability and credibility of the evidence from all sources.
The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, gave a sample from the list of organisations which support an option other than the proposals before us. I suspect that such a list is a tribute to the quality of service that those organisations have experienced and perhaps reflects everyone's inherent resistance to change. It is not necessarily a conclusive argument against change.
I do not regard the order as a template or a precedent. Each geographical area and each group of communities poses separate issues. It is inevitable that Cleveland does not have quite the same place in people's hearts as did the old counties. I knew that I would agree with much of the argument put forward tonight. However, I diverge at the point of decision. I diverge from those noble Lords who spoke at the start of the debate. I cannot support the amendment. I am concerned about the 100-feet syndrome referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have before us tonight the first order that comes from the Local Government Commission, together with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I should like to make three points.
First, we on these Benches do not necessarily quarrel with the outcome as such—to replace the county councils with four unitary authorities. Secondly, however, we do quarrel with the way that the matter has been handled by the commission and by the Government—so much so that, had the Bancroft amendment been an amendment not to an order but to a Bill, we might well have been minded to support it. Because it is an amendment to an order, which, with the consequential delays would make it essentially a wrecking amendment, we believe that we should continue to respect the long-established self-denying ordinance of this House on orders and statutory instruments not to defy the elected Chamber. Therefore we shall abstain on both the order and the amendment.
Perhaps I may say a little more about each of those points. First, we do not necessarily quarrel with the outcome. The Labour Party's position over some 15 to 20 years has been that the 1974 reorganisation of local government was mistaken, was unstable and should be reformed. We have over many years called for unitary authorities based largely on district councils where they enjoy the support of local people within a framework—which I know my noble friend Lady Farrington also supports—of elected regional authorities.
Like my noble friend Lord Stoddart, I was a councillor in a county borough both before and after the reorganisation of 1974 and am now a vice-president of the ADC as well as the AMA. The 1974 reorganisation splintered services that should be together—especially housing, which became a district function, and social services, which became a county function—at just the time when they needed to be integrated for the effective
954
delivery of care in the community. At the same time it made other services such as economic development and aspects of leisure concurrent, so that in some authorities both authorities carried out the functions, while in others neither did so.
The consequence is that local residents and taxpayers to this day, as all polls have shown, still do not know who does what, to what standard of service, at what cost and in whose name. This was brought home to me forcibly just a few months ago. Our city library in Norwich, as many noble Lords will know, was burnt to the ground. It was a calamity for us. The city council, the Lord Mayor and even myself as a former leader received countless letters about the matter —as though we, the city council, were the library authority. Yet it has been a county function for 20 years. Many people in the street and almost all of those who wrote to us did not even know that fact.
If they believed that the city was responsible for the libraries, how could they hold the county council responsible? And if they could not hold the county responsible, what is local government all about? As Redcliffe Maude said—and I am only sorry that Sir John Banham did not apparently read this part of Redcliffe Maude —county boroughs and unitary authorities were the most effective form of local government England has known.
Yet the Labour Party has always argued that those unitary authorities should be within a framework of elected regional authorities in order to bring power down from Whitehall—the principle of subsidiarity mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon—to democratise the quangos (there are under this Government now more members of quangos than there are of elected local authorities) and to have a regional perspective on economic development, on strategic planning and on Europe. We have regional government in this country. What we do not have is regional democracy.
Therefore the Labour Party gave a cautious welcome to the original Heseltine review when, in January 1992, the Secretary of State said:
"We know that most local authorities want unitary status and we believe that such status will provide a better structure for the future in most areas".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/92; col. 37.]
But we also voiced our concerns: namely, that we feared that the review process would be whimsical, arbitrary even and possibly shambolic. As my right honourable friend Mr. Dobson said in the other place on this order the other night:
"After two years of wrangling, vast expense and court cases, we do not have a sensible set of propositions from the review … The process should have been clear, consistent and straightforward".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/95; col. 206.]
Instead, to quote my right honourable friend, it has become "a shambles". He was entirely right. Of the 296 districts that entered the review, there will probably be some 230 at the end of it.
Why has the whole thing been such a mess? We in this House must take some measure of blame. Three-and-a-half years ago my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and I argued, and we had considerable support, that the Bill should make it clear

955
that the review was to establish, where appropriate, a coherent pattern of unitary authorities. That amendment was also urged by my right honourable friend Mr. Blunkett in another place. The Minister resisted it on the grounds that the Government did not want to,
"tie the hands of the commission".
With hindsight, that was a critical mistake.
Belatedly, the Secretary of State came to realise that the amendment was absolutely right and he circulated guidance to that effect—which was then struck down by the courts because it was not embodied in the Act itself. Had the Government listened, and had they accepted that amendment, none of this shambles need have happened. But the Government did not, and subsequent Ministers have had to pick up the pieces—for by refusing that amendment what subsequently happened was that the green light was given to Sir John Banham. He became not just independent of the Secretary of State but effectively independent of the will of Parliament, because the words were not in the Act. He has exercised that freedom in a way that has been deplored by one of his fellow commissioners, Mrs. Hodge. She told the other place that the chairman,
"showed no consistency of approach, was too often influenced by personal preferences and personal experiences, rather than objective assessment, and operated somewhat undemocratically and autocratically".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/95; cols. 223–4.]
She went on (I am quoting a commissioner):
"We should have dispensed with his services".
In consequence, each county proposal is therefore ad hoc; whereas if the guidance had been part of the legislation, as it should have been, we could have been considering today a coherent set of recommendations for England as a whole, just as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, asks.
Such a position in the Act might also have checked some of the dog fights that have taken place between districts and counties. Unlike Sir John Banham, they could not have insisted that it was a free-for-all. Perhaps some of the energies and efforts that have been put into the review over the past two years could instead have been put into ensuring better services.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, also calls on the Government to ensure that there is a proper provision of essential services. The commission says that it is satisfied that such services will be provided effectively. Not surprisingly, so do four of the five authorities concerned. But given that so many noble Lords have raised the issue tonight, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that, of the proposed unitary authorities, three of the four are larger than Kingston-upon-Thames, which is one of the London boroughs; for Hartlepool, the fourth unitary authority proposed, even the county council itself agrees that it should have unitary status.
It is also worth reminding ourselves, since on occasion it has been said, that because those authorities co-operate to provide a specialist joint service, it does not make them a quango. They remain elected, open and accountable. Would that quangos were! Given the way that many county councils have established district
956
offices for education and social services, in very many counties to my personal knowledge we already have district administration. We just do not have district accountability.
However, where we very much agree with the noble Lord's amendment is on the need to protect the position of staff. Local government services are as good as and no better than the staff who deliver them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, there has been some movement on that issue. I understand that all employees of Cleveland will be transferred, if they wish, to the new authorities. There is a national agreement which will come into effect at the end of this month to guarantee that.
Moreover, I understand that under pressure the Government have also conceded a national detriment compensation scheme for those local government staff who would lose pay as a result of restructuring, and that is also welcomed. I also understand that Cleveland local authority leaders have given additional assurances. We have had letters to say publicly that all the district authorities support a no compulsory redundancy policy and see no reason to change in respect of the review.
So there has been some movement on staff, but not enough. It is still the case that the compensation for staff who take voluntary redundancy is simply not good enough. In the 1986 review they were entitled to up to 86 weeks' compensation. This time around the Government are offering only 66 weeks. That is not fair to those staff of Cleveland County Council who have given competent, dedicated service over many years. As my right honourable friend Mr. Dobson said in the other place, the Government must think again on this matter and meet the Staff Commission's proposal of 82 weeks.
I shall not comment on the courts, since the Minister told the other place that he would take stock of the legal position before any order was made. I shall instead turn to my final point.
Because of the shambolic state of the review in general and inadequate compensation for staff in particular, we on these Benches support much of the substance of the noble Lord's amendment. Why then do we propose to abstain from a vote? I repeat, had this matter concerned an amendment to a Bill rather than to an order we might have been minded to vote for it. Why then is there a difference? If we had amended a Bill and the other place had rejected our amendment, we should have had to acquiesce in their rejection of our amendment and the will of the democratically elected Chamber would have prevailed. But if we amend an order or a statutory instrument, that kills the order. The other place cannot override us, so that we, an unelected Chamber, will have overturned a decision of the elected Chamber. That order would then have to be re-laid before both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Lord's amendment is not technically fatal; but, in our view, it is so hostile that it has the same effect, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart made very clear. The elections to the shadow authority could not take place in April and therefore there would be delays of a year. I am sure that that would be repeated for each and every order in the pipeline which, having been passed by the other place, had come to this House. For

957
every time that a local government order was introduced for half the counties of England, this House would have established a precedent for sending it away again.
This Cleveland order, precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said, should be taken with other orders. It cannot therefore be taken by us as a one-off. It could kill the review. The House of Lords, an unelected Chamber, would have been responsible for that. We would have thwarted the will of the other place. That convention, the self-denying ordinance, that the unelected Chamber does not thwart the will ultimately of the elected Chamber is so strong that, during the period of the last Labour Government, your Lordships sought to amend an order only twice: one on town planning and one on national parks. Neither order had the degree of political sensitivity for the other place that this order carries.
For the rest, and for the past 15 years, that self-denying ordinance on politically sensitive issues has been respected and we on this side shall expect it to be respected in the years to come. We amend as an unelected Chamber; we debate as an unelected Chamber; we revise; but ultimately as an unelected Chamber we do not thwart. For that reason and that reason alone we shall be abstaining tonight.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps she will be kind enough to answer my question. I am totally at a loss to understand her speech. Everything she said was irrelevant to the order. She said that the Government were shambolic but that, nevertheless, she would not vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I cannot understand why not. Paragraph (b) of the amendment says that the order should come back to us after the Government,
"have published their decisions on the recommendations of the Local Government Commission in respect of all the English counties, thereby enabling this House to consider the draft order in the light of those decisions".
In other words, it is not suggesting that we should reject everything; it suggests that the matter should come back to us. In those circumstances, if everything the Government are doing is shambolic, why not support us?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to persuade my noble friend, whose views on so many subjects I heartily respect, of the case that, if we supported it, a delay because of this amendment—for that is what it would mean—would hold up every other order in the pipeline. As a consequence, the long-established self-denying ordinance of this House should continue to be respected.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall not have the temerity to cross swords with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on this occasion. The views that she put forward to the House are probably exactly the right ones.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount continues, perhaps I can say that my noble friend said that she hoped that the self-denying ordinance would continue in future years whatever the
958
Government was. In accepting that the view my noble friend put forward was right, is the noble Viscount committing future Oppositions to that view?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the House respects its own conventions and I welcome the opportunity that the noble Baroness gave us of keeping to those conventions. That was the purpose of my remarks.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the frank and thoughtful contribution to this evening's debate. Your Lordships raise a number of points and I shall attempt to reply to as many as possible in the time available. I must start with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who asked me to identify early why a local government reform was introduced by statutory instrument and not by primary legislation. Of course, the approach adopted in England followed extensive consultation which received a wide measure of support. When the Local Government Act 1992 was taken through Parliament, those principles received widespread support.
However, I must address the issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, drew attention in his amendment and on which he elaborated in his speech. The noble Lord mentioned the desirability of including provision for essential services. As I said earlier, the Government considered that carefully. Unitary authorities should be able to deliver the bulk of services themselves. However, the Government have always recognised that some functions may need to be considered on a wider basis than a single unitary authority. The draft order requires each of the new councils to look carefully at each function to see whether there should be voluntary arrangements—and I want to return to that later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, suggested that in the reorganisation of Scotland the legislation made clear the reorganisation of the specialist services. Of course the situation in Scotland where new councils are to be established everywhere, is entirely different. The Government's view is that voluntary arrangements are to be preferred to statutory joint arrangements, wherever possible. The benefits of unitary authorities include greater local accountability and a capacity to look at service provision in the round. Those benefits would be diluted by statutory joint arrangements. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene where satisfactory voluntary arrangements are not made or where they break down, and the Government may be concerned to see that proper arrangements are made.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, asked about emergency planning and specialist educational needs. I understand that, for civil defence and emergency planning, the Cleveland districts established clear and uncomplicated joint arrangement procedures. The districts are confident that the functions of those services will not be affected by reorganisation and special educational facilities and support services are already district-based, as has been mentioned.
As regards staff, ultimately, of course, it will be for the successor authorities themselves to decide on the organisation and selection of their staff. However, we expect that the great majority of staff—as my noble friend Lady Flather indicated, some 90 per cent.,

959
including front line service providers—will transfer automatically by statutory transfer orders. We have always made clear that, although we hope that most staff will transfer to the reorganised authorities or accept voluntary retirement, a small proportion may be made redundant. The compensation provisions proposed for these cases have been set out in the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994, which came into force on 28th December.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Farrington and Lady Hollis, indicated that the arrangements are not satisfactory. Local authorities are given discretion to pay up to 66 weeks' pay based on age, service and banding to eligible staff below the age of 50. I must remind the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that these arrangements at the maximum are more than two and a half times more generous than otherwise statutorily provided under employment legislation. I know that a good many private sector employees would enjoy that form of redundancy. Other posts will be filled by recruitment. The Local Government Staff Commission is consulting on rules for ensuring that staff of outgoing authorities have as fair a chance as possible of securing a post in successor authorities. The Government have also made it clear that they expect chief officer and head of paid service posts to be filled by open competition where a continuing authority with new functions, like the Cleveland authorities, decides to create new posts with duties and responsibilities of a very different kind from existing posts. We in the Government care very much about the staff in Cleveland who have given such good service both to the county council and to the borough councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, also proposes that this draft order should be considered only when the Government's decision on all review areas is known. That point was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Such a delay would prolong uncertainty and delay the benefits of change in Cleveland and elsewhere. The Government want local government structures which meet local needs. If that means not having a pattern which is administratively tidy, so be it. Those involved in local government in Cleveland, not least council employees, have had the prospect of reorganisation hanging over them since 1992. It is time to bring that uncertainty to an end. Moreover, the residents of Cleveland deserve to begin reaping the benefits of more accountable local government with more cost-effective and better co-ordinated service delivery as early as possible.
I come to Cleveland County Council's application for judicial review. The Government thought very carefully before laying the draft order before your Lordships. The county council's legal challenge was turned down on every count in the High Court and it has twice been refused leave to appeal. At each stage the courts took the view that the county council's case was a dispute as to the merits of the commission's recommendation thinly disguised as a legal challenge. Nevertheless, because of the delay caused by the case, the Government were obliged to put back the reorganisation date for Cleveland by a year. The county council is now seeking
960
an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal—its final recourse. The department has applied for the expedition of the hearing, which has not yet been scheduled. However, I understand that the county council has written opposing expedition. I am sure that noble Lords will come to their own conclusions about the council's motives.
We believe that delaying approval of the order until the case is heard, possibly leading to a further year's delay in the reorganisation date—here I have to agree with my noble friend Lady Flather and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon—would be a great disservice to the people of Cleveland. Subject to your Lordships' approval, we will want immediately to take stock of the legal position. If we decide to proceed, we will first write to the councils involved giving notice of the Secretary of State's intention to make the order on a given date.
Perhaps I may respond to one or two other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull questioned the tests of public opinion. In all tests of public opinion the four unitary option has been more popular than the existing system or the two unitary option. It was right that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, should remind us that the majority, namely, four out of six of the Cleveland MPs, support the four-district option. The noble Lords, Lord Bancroft and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough, asked: why not re-create the county borough of Teesside? That may have been appropriate in 1968; I do not believe that it is appropriate for 1996. All four existing borough councils, including the three which were formerly in Teesside, have rejected the option. A four-authority structure has consistently been shown to be much more popular with local people than the Teesside-Hartlepool option.
Not one but three surveys were carried out for the county and districts jointly, the Local Government Commission and the county on its own. They all failed to back the re-creation of Teesside. Unlike 1968, the boroughs are keen to go their own way. But if in future they want to go the same way as they did in 1968, the door is open for them to apply to do so. Perhaps I may give a quotation:
"It is very disappointing that the County council is still attempting to mislead the people of Cleveland at this stage. It really is time they accepted the decision of local people, the Commission and the Government and used their energies to help plan the way forward for the future".
I tend to agree with that view from a press release issued on behalf of the councils of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees and Langbaurgh on Tees.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and my noble friend Lady Faithfull asked about the costs of reorganisation. In reaching our decision we anticipated that costs might be rather higher than the commission estimates. But we took the view that the savings and other benefits would, as the commission advised, justify the costs. The authorities who will be implementing reorganisation in Cleveland estimate that they can achieve net savings of £15 million per annum which is a little more than the estimate of the Local Government

961
Commission of between £6 million and £11 million. I believe that those are the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, quoted. That is not a bad return. It will benefit the people of Cleveland year after year.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked about estimates of costs. Perhaps I may indicate that these are the district estimates and, after all, they are the closest to it. They believe that the net total cost over the transitional period from 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1999 will be £25.834 million. However, if one takes away the interest which arises because of the way the Government have chosen to fund the reorganisation, that comes down to just over £18 million. As I said, they also believe that there will be total ongoing savings arising from 1999 onwards of £15 million per annum.
My noble friends Lord Crathorne and Lord Gisborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, were interested and concerned about future strategic planning in Cleveland. The commission has proposed that the four unitary authorities should maintain separate local plans but work together on a joint structure plan. We endorse that recommendation. The draft order gives effect to that by transferring the county's strategic planning responsibilities to the four borough councils thus enabling them to make voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan. We are satisfied that voluntary arrangements for joint working in Cleveland will achieve the desired results.
The Cleveland boroughs have published their suggestions for a joint committee that will take the political lead and for an overview of structure planning, strategic highway issues and the strategic elements of waste disposal and minerals. They have also developed proposals for the officer groupings which would service those functions.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough gave a list of the organisations that he said were not supporting the four unitary authorities. Perhaps it is not surprising that my noble friend received all those letters. After all, he is the Lord Lieutenant, although I believe that he failed to indicate that fact in his speech this evening.
Noble Lords: He did!
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I most certainly did so.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. Obviously, I did not hear him say so and I take back my remark.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about the future of care in the community and particularly about the view of the local health authorities. The chief executive of Tees Health has stated that the establishment of four unitary district authorities is not a barrier to effective collaboration and looks forward to developing, with the districts, creative and imaginative opportunities for better health and social care.
Before the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, decides whether to seek to divide the House on his amendment, I hope that he will have regard to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Indeed, both noble Baronesses who spoke from the Opposition Front Benches have
962
declared that they will not support the amendment. I therefore urge the noble Lord to consider this point carefully: the people of Cleveland want change. That has been amply demonstrated both through the Local Government Commission's consultation process and in the county council's own opinion poll. Of the options for change which the commission considered realistic, a structure of four unitary authorities was by far the most popular locally. It was significantly more popular than the two-authority structure which was proposed by the county council and supported by several noble Lords this evening.
The purpose of the local government review, which has been frequently stated by the Government, is to secure for each area a structure of local government which is accountable, which reflects the identity and confidence of local people and which provides services efficiently and cost-effectively to the community. The Government are confident that the structure which the commission proposed for Cleveland will achieve that. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I echo the noble Viscount in saying that this has been an interesting debate. I am grateful to all Peers who have taken part and especially those who supported my amendment. If I may say so, tonight their lips have been brushed by the shade of John Milton.
It is unsurprising that the main points that have been made have been along predictable but important lines. I do not propose to weary the House at this hour by rehearsing them in detail. The noble Viscount has done that admirably, although with a rather different gloss from that which I would have put on them. Nor do I propose to pick out individual speakers since he has done so.
I must, however, point out that for the Government to claim that this new patchwork of authorities is where they always intended to end up is the most outrageous and hilarious claim since Arthur Askey claimed to be Charley's Aunt. The truth is that, in accordance with the old song, every time Sir John Banham turned, DoE Ministers turned too. For three years Marsham Street has resounded to the twanging of bed springs as Ministers change positions yet again.
I remain extremely anxious about the robust delivery of essential services, about the absence of a single authority for a major conurbation, the Government's unnerving ignorance about the roots of Teesside, the difficulty of establishing the truth about local opinion, the need to judge a particular case against the future shape of English local government as a whole, and the propriety of proceeding when the basis of the order is still subject to challenge in the courts.
What has been said on that last point would tempt me into the territory of Ignatius Loyola and his Jesuits, and I do not intend to tread that path. I am unchastened by charges that my amendment would prolong uncertainty; it was the Government who pressed the button of uncertainty three years ago. What about the uncertainty

963
in all the other counties, miles behind Cleveland in the Government's disorderly queue? My anxieties about Cleveland extend to all of them.
But, in assessing my decision now, which, as the Minister pointed out, I must consider carefully, I have to consider matters other than the support and the opposition for my amendment so eloquently expressed tonight. They include the voting intentions, or lack of them, of the Official Opposition. I hesitate to comment upon what the police call "a domestic" and upon the fact that over 200 Members of the Opposition voted against the order in another place. We are told that the Opposition's attitude, apart from natural divisions upon the merits, is the continuation of a form of self-denying ordinance. If so, they are clearly acting on the basis that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, for as recently as 31st January last they voted in favour of an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
That amendment, like mine, would have deferred approval of a draft order. The Opposition were led into the Lobby by their Leader, the Chief Whip, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Moonbeams from the larger lunar system are shining brightly tonight. I predict that sooner rather than later the people of Teesside will have a single authority. It is the optimum practicable solution.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure that the noble Lord did not wish to mislead the House, so perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that the order to which he referred on 31st January 1994, and the amendment to it which was in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that the House should call upon Her Majesty's Government not only to withdraw the draft order but to relay it in a month, having considered whether it should extend to social services.
In other words, unlike tonight, that order, which has been quoted twice by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, was a one-off, with no consequences for other services or bodies, and it was time-defined. In that sense, it may have been hostile; it was not fatal. Therefore there is a world of difference between that and what we are discussing tonight.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. As I said in my opening remarks, to which she was perhaps not listening, in my view, had the Government behaved sensibly over my amendment, then it would have been a matter of a delay of a few weeks and not a year. It is not a wrecking amendment.
I repeat: sooner rather than later, the people of Teesside will have a single authority. It is the optimum practicable solution. If the order is approved, there will be a period of sad and costly turmoil, until that inevitable optimum solution is achieved.
964
I hope that our debate will be a salutary foretaste for the Government of what lies ahead of them on the other orders. Given the strength of views in favour of the amendment expressed tonight, I believe it right to test the opinion of the House.
9.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 73.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Bancroft, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Barnett, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bridges, L.

Monkswell, L.

Carnavon, E.

Moyne, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Crathorne, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Faithfull, B.

Selborne, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Stedman, B.

Gisborough, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thurlow, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Addison, V.

Leigh, L.

Airedale, L.

Lindsay, E.

Aldington, L.

Long, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor, V.

Lucas, L.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Borthwick, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cadman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Northesk, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Coleraine, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Courtown, E.

Rawlings, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Redesdale, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rees, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Flather, B.

Rodney, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harlech, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Tope, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Torrington, V.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.

  WORLD SUMMIT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
  Lord Redesdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What directives they intend to pursue at the Social World Summit for Development in March.

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
  I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on 19 January at col.WA49.

  ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
  Lord Redesdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  In view of their commitment at the Rio Summit to support sustainable agriculture, what steps are being taken to stimulate organic systems of agriculture in developing countries with a view to improving the productivity of farmers unable to afford imported chemical inputs.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  The ODA has prepared a sustainable agriculture strategy aimed at maintaining or enhancing the productivity of the natural resource base while improving long-term food security. A copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House. ODA officials are in regular contact with representatives of the UK organic movement about the contribution that organic systems can make to the strategy, and a number of project proposals are being developed.

  During 1994, the ODA supported eight projects in east and west Africa on organic approaches to sustainable agriculture at a total cost of over £1 million.

  ZAIRE: RWANDAN REFUGEE CRISIS
  Lord Redesdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps they are taking with other members of the European Union and the United Nations to end the refugee crisis in Zaire and facilitate the return of refugees to Rwanda.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  Increased refugee return depends on greater security in the camps outside Rwanda and efforts to rebuild the country's economic and social fabric. We are, with EU partners, pressing the UN to take urgent action to improve security, At the Rwanda Round Table on 18–19 January, the international community, including the UK and EU partners, pledged about 578 million dollars in support of Rwanda's 1995 Programme of National Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Recovery.

  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether former members of the Warsaw Pact, which are signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and are now associated with NATO through
  WA 64
  "Partnerships for Peace", are now recipients of the security guarantees which hitherto were extended by the NPT signatories only to non-nuclear signatories of that treaty not allied to a nuclear power.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  The United Kingdom's Positive and Negative Security Assurances, announced in 1968 and 1978, have always been applied to non-nuclear weapons States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or States Parties to other internationally binding commitments not to manufacture or acquire nuclear explosive devices. Under the Negative Security Assurance the United Kingdom undertakes not to use nuclear weapons against such states except in the case of an attack on the United Kingdom, its dependent territories, its armed forces or its Allies by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. This has not changed.

  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in the run-up to the Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the attention of the signatories to the Treaty has been drawn to: the absence of Israel from their number; the undenied reports of Israel's substantial nuclear stockpile; and the provision to Israel by one of the treaty's signatories of massive financial, technical, intelligence, and military assistance, including nuclear-capable aircraft.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  We, and other states parties, have been concerned for some time about reports that Israel has a nuclear weapons programme. We continue to urge Israel to allay suspicions categorically by acceding to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state and concluding a full-scope safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they consider that the nuclear-capable exercises (such as "Team Spirit") that have been conducted by the USA and its allies in the neighbourhood of the Korean Peninsula have been compatible with the security assurances extended to North Korea when it adhered to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and whether similar nuclear-capable exercises by Russia in the neighbourhood of the Ukraine would be compatible with the written security assurances that the US, Russia and the UK are now extending to Ukraine and other new signatories of the treaty.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  It is for the recipients of security assurances to decide whether, in their view, a threat has arisen incompatible with those assurances. North Korea has not approached us on this matter. It would be open to Ukraine to raise any concerns with us if ever they judged it necessary.

  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Answer of Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (HL Deb., 8 December 1994, Col. WA99), whether Ukraine has adhered to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a weapon state or as a non-weapon state; and, if the latter, whether it still claims ownership of the weapons which remain on its territory or of the materials of which they are made.
  WA 65
  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  Ukraine has acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state. The law passed by the Ukrainian Parliament (Rada) paving the way for the country's accession to the NPT included a proviso referring to its claim to ownership of the nuclear weapons on its territory. This was made against the background of Ukraine's claim to receive compensation for the dismantlement of the weapons. Ukraine had agreed in January 1994 that the weapons on its territory should be removed to Russia and dismantled.

  UK/US MUTUAL DEFENCE AGREEMENT
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the UK is bound by the 1958 UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement to collaborate with the US in the development of plans for defence against atomic weapons, and specifically in the US Defence Counterproliferation Initiative.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  The 1958 UK/US Mutual Defence Agreement is an enabling measure, which facilitates bilateral co-operation on atomic energy for nuclear defence purposes. It imposes no obligations on Her Majesty's Government to collaborate on specific UK projects.

  SOMALIA: CONSTRUCTION WORK BY BROWN & ROOT
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What constructions were erected by Brown & Root in Somalia, for whose benefit and on whose orders, what facilities they included; and for what will they now be used.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  Prior to 1 April 1994, Brown & Root provided construction services to the United Nations Operation in Somalia II (UNOSOM II) under a support contract negotiated directly with the United Nations.

  According to the UN Secretariat, construction projects assigned to Brown & Root by UNOSOM included fabrication or relocation of the temporary, one-storey, general purpose wooden buildings that UNOSOM used as living accommodation and administrative space; the renovation of UN-owned prefabricated buildings which had outlived their normal lifespan; and the selective refurbishment of indigenous structures so as to make them usable by UNOSOM for the duration of its mandate. In some cases, Brown & Root was tasked to build or relocate entire camps from one location to another. The scope of work included the requirement to construct associated water, power, drainage and septic systems, access roads and walkways, and perimeter security fencing.

  In addition, Brown & Root carried out road and runway construction projects, involving limited improvements to existing roads, runways, taxiways and parking aprons, helipads used by UNOSOM supply vehicles and transport aircraft engaged in the logistics tasks of the mission.
  WA 66
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will confirm that the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Somalia requested $94 million from United Nations headquarters in New York to pay for services from Brown & Root during the spring of 1994, and, if so, what were those services, and by whom were they approved.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  According to the United Nations Secretariat, the actual amount paid to Brown & Root for the period 1 November 1993 through 31 May 1994 relating to services in Somalia was $44,614,700.

  The UN has issued the following breakdown of the services provided:

  $

  I.

  Equipment acquisition

  15,301,000

  II.

  Contractual services Water distribution

  1,415,000

  Engineering services

  2,950,000

  Transportation

  4,018,000

  Troop support

  1,539,000

  Equipment rental

  1,463,000

  Brown & Root mobilisation costs

  2,046,000

  Parts for US-provided equipment

  12,582,700

  Airfield matings purchased from US Army

  1,298,000

  Airport services and freight management

  2,002,000

  Sub-total

  29,313,700

  Total

  44,614,700

  The services provided by Brown & Root were approved by the appropriate Committee on Contracts convened in the field and in the United Nations headquarters in New York.

  SOMALIA: UN MESS HALL
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will confirm that a new "village" for 800 United Nations employees was constructed in Somalia at an estimated cost to the United Nations of $12 million.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  According to the United Nations Secretariat, a 800-man mess hall, inclusive of water, septic system, generators, electrical installations, air-conditioners and basic furniture was constructed to provide messing facilities for all civilian and military staff (some 800–1200 people per day) assigned to the UNOSOM II Headquarters in Mogadishu at an estimated cost of 12,000,000 dollars.

  The camp will be dismantled by 31 January 1995 and shipped to other United Nations missions as required.

  NORTHERN IRELAND: MILK MARKETING SCHEME
  Lord Lyell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  WA 67
  What decision has been made on the reorganisation scheme submitted by the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield
  The Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 provided for the ending of the statutory milk marketing scheme in Northern Ireland. It enabled the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland to submit proposals for its replacement by voluntary arrangements, for the transfer of its assets to specified successor bodies and for the distribution of the value of those assets to milk producers.

  The Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland submitted reorganisation proposals to the Department of Agriculture on 31 December 1993. Following this, a wide-ranging consultation exercise was conducted when the views of the various parties with an interest were sought. Subsequently, and in the light of the responses to that consultation, the Milk Marketing Board on 26 August 1994 submitted an amended reorganisation scheme and a further round of consultation was conducted.

  In his statement of 21 December 1994, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland commented on the Milk Marketing Board's proposals. He said that those reorganisation proposals met the requirements of the Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 and that, subject to, and contingent upon, approval being given by the EC under Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty in respect of the state aids inherent in the scheme, certain amendments being made to the scheme, and satisfactory arrangements being put in place to cover any liability upon the residuary board in respect of milk quota superlevy, the scheme submitted by the board was one that merits approval.

  The Milk Marketing Board has now submitted the formal amendments to its scheme as required in my right honourable and learned friend's statement, together with the necessary assurances in relation to payment of any milk quota superlevy. Formal state aid approval by the European Commission has now been confirmed. The scheme was therefore approved on 20 January in accordance with the requirements of the Agriculture (Northern Ireland) Order 1993.

  The order requires that the principles of the approved reorganisation scheme be made public. The principles of the scheme as submitted, and subsequently amended, by the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland were set out in the two consultation documents issued by the Department of Agriculture in January and September 1994. Although some further detailed amendments have been made by the Milk Marketing Board to its scheme, the principles as set out in those documents are unchanged. Copies of the consultation documents, together with a note updating them in the light of the further detailed amendments, are available from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Under the approved reorganisation scheme, the existing statutory milk marketing scheme will be
  WA 68
  revoked on 1 March 1995 (the "vesting date"). As a result, producers will be free to sell their milk to whom they wish, whether to the successor co-operative being established under the board's reorganisation scheme, to agricultural co-operatives or other groups marketing milk on behalf of producers, or direct to processors. The current joint committee system of centrally negotiated pricing according to the milk's ultimate end-use will end on the vesting date. The price of milk will be determined by contract between purchaser and supplier.

  The Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland will be succeeded by a producer co-operative, United Dairy Farmers Limited, and the board's commercial division, Dromona Quality Foods, will be incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of United. The assets being transferred to United have been set at £18.003 million. Eligible producers who join United will receive shares in United proportionate to their milk production in 1992–93. Eligible producers who elect not to join United will receive redeemable loanstock bearing an interest rate at bank base rate plus a 0.5 per cent premium. Loanstock will be allocated on the same basis as shares to joiners of United and will be redeemed not later than five years after the vesting date.

  In view of the delay in the vesting date from 1 April 1994, as first proposed, to 1 March 1995, the Milk Marketing Board has written to all milk producers who have already signed a contract with United to provide them with an opportunity to withdraw without penalty from that contract.

  STORNOWAY:EMERGENCY TOWING ARRANGEMENTS
  The Earl of Dundonald
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the article published in the West Highland Free Press dated 30 December 1994, covering the deployment of a Croatian-crewed, St Vincent-flagged tug, employed by the Coastguard Agency to operate in the Minches is true; and if so whether they are satisfied that its deployment will satisfy the recommendations of the Donaldson report.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)
  The Coastguard Agency has awarded a contract to United Towing Limited of Hull for two tugs to be stationed at Stornoway and Dover for a trial period of this winter. This meets Lord Donaldson's recommendation that there should be interim emergency towing arrangements this winter: the inquiry recommended that priority should be given to the Dover Strait and North-West Scotland. Tenders were invited from a wide range of salvage and towing companies against a tight specification. In accordance with government policy, no restriction was placed on flag or crew nationality as such, though the vessels proposed were expected to meet international safety requirements such as the Safety Of Life at Sea Convention. The contract was awarded on the basis of performance against specification and value for money. The selected tugs, which are Croatian-owned and crewed and are
  WA 69
  registered in St. Vincent, are managed in the UK by a UK company. They have been employed in the North Sea by major oil companies for the last three years.

  CENSUS UNDER-ENUMERATION
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will commission research to estimate the under-enumeration of 16 and 17 year-olds in the 1991 census.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)
  Research into undercoverage was carried out as the results of the 1991 census became available. Details are given in various Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and General Register Office (Scotland) publications, copies of which are available in the Library. The estimated undercoverage of 15–19 year olds in Great Britain was 2 per cent., but this cannot be subdivided by single year of age as not all the necessary information could be obtained in this degree of detail.

  HM PRISON WORMWOOD SCRUBS: MOSQUE
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Why the mosque at Her Majesty's Prison, Wormwood Scrubs has been closed, and when it will reopen.

  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter to Lord Avebury from the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Derek Lewis, dated 23 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the mosque at Wormwood Scrubs.
  The mosque has been closed temporarily for the last four months to allow for the refurbishment of this area of the prison. The expectations are that it will re-open in March of this year. Until then an alternative site for worship has been provided for use by prisoners of the Islamic faith and other religious denominations.

  BRINSFORD YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTION: DRUG TRAFFICKING PROSECUTION
  Lord Harris of Greenwich
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What action they propose to take following the comments made on drug trafficking at Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution and Remand Centre, Brinsford, in the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and whether they propose to discuss with the Crown Prosecution Service and the police the policy on prosecutions relating to drug smuggling in closed penal institutions.

  Baroness Blatch
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  WA 70
  Letter to Lord Harris of Greenwich from the Director General of the Prison Service, Mr. Derek Lewis, dated 23 January 1995:
  Baroness Blatch has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the prosecution of those involved in drug trafficking in Brinsford young offender institution.
  Since Brinsford opened in November 1991 there has been one case of a visitor found in possession of drugs. The case was reported to the police, who cautioned the visitor. The governor met the police and Crown Prosecution Service to explain the implications for the prison. The local police have since indicated that, with sufficient evidence, they would charge such suspects with intent to supply a controlled drug. A vigorous approach is taken at Brinsford (as at all other establishments) to preventing drugs being smuggled into the establishment.
  Governors are encouraged to liaise locally with the police and Crown Prosecution Service. The Prison Service have previously made more general representations to the Crown Prosecution Service on the greater impact of offences when they are committed in a prison or young offender institution, because of the wider effect on internal discipline. The Crown Prosecution Service accept this point and have reflected it in the new prosecution code they issued for Crown Prosecutors last summer.

  CAPPING CRITERIA: REPRESENTATIONS
  Viscount St Davids
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What representations they have received on the proposed notional amounts and adjustments to the capping criteria in 1995–96.

  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  We have received a large number of representations from authorities, including new information and revised data, which we are considering carefully. However, we have now reached preliminary views on all these representations, and we are informing authorities of our current proposals reflecting these preliminary conclusions. Tables showing our current proposals have been placed in the Library of the House.

  SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: UK ROUND TABLE
  Viscount St Davids
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When the first meeting of the United Kingdom Round Table on Sustainable Development is to be held.

  Viscount Ullswater
  The inaugural meeting of the Round Table is being held today. Professor Sir Richard Southwood and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be co-chairmen.
  WA 71
  This is a major new body with a vital role in driving forward environmentally sustainable development. It will have the following objectives:

  * to help identify the agenda and priorities for sustainable development;

  * to develop new areas of consensus on difficult issues of sustainable development and, where this is not possible, to clarify and reduce difference;
  WA 72
  * to provide advice and recommendations on actions to achieve sustainable development;

  * to help evaluate progress towards objectives; and

  * to inform and involve others, building wider support for emerging consensus.

  A copy of my right honourable friend's letter of invitation to members has been placed in the House Libraries. A list of members will be placed in the Libraries today.